Searching for smart, safe news you can TRUST?

Support safe, smart, REAL journalism. Sign up for our Axios AM & PM newsletters and get smarter, faster.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Searching for smart, safe news you can TRUST?

Support safe, smart, REAL journalism. Sign up for our Axios AM & PM newsletters and get smarter, faster.

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Denver news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Denver

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Des Moines news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Des Moines

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Minneapolis-St. Paul news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Minneapolis-St. Paul

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Tampa-St. Petersburg news in your inbox

Catch up on the most important stories affecting your hometown with Axios Tampa-St. Petersburg

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

Please enter a valid email.

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!

The Supreme Court heard a major case on digital privacy. Photo: Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

In a broad conflict between law enforcement and digital privacy, the Supreme Court seems inclined to come down on the side of privacy. But the justices weren't quite sure how to get there, or how far to go — and those details will have an enormous impact on the future of digital privacy.

The bottom line: The court heard arguments this morning over whether police should be able to track the location of a suspect's cell phone without a warrant. A majority of the justices seemed uncomfortable with that practice and concerned that if they don't pump the brakes now, the government would soon have easy access to access almost every detail of our lives. But they also worried about going too far in the other direction.

"This is an open box — we know not where we go," Justice Stephen Breyer said.

The big picture: The court has said in the past that you don't have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with information you voluntarily turn over to a third party. And the Justice Department argued this morning that those rulings clearly mean police don't need to get a search warrant before using cell-tower data to retrace a suspect's steps.

The ACLU, on the other hand, argued that police should need a warrant for location data, or at least to collect several days' or weeks' worth of data.

The big question: The court's liberal bloc was solidly on the ACLU's side, and some of the conservative justices also seemed to be looking for narrower limits on warrantless location searches. But today's arguments offered few clear indications of what such a decision might look like, or how aggressively the court might move.

  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor wants to revisit the so-called "third party doctrine" altogether. She said today that the American people "want to avoid Big Brother."
  • Breyer, a Democratic appointee, asked lawyers to lay out a way the court could rule against law enforcement in this case without also cutting off access to the financial records used to investigate white-collar crime. "Where are we going? Is this the right line? How do we write it?" he asked.
  • "I need to know how much existing precedent you want us to overrule, or declare obsolete," Justice Samuel Alito said to the ACLU lawyer arguing against warrantless tracking. The court almost never overturns its own precedents, and Alito suggested it might need to revisit a slew of old cases in order to side with the ACLU here.
  • Justice Neil Gorsuch took the proceedings down a specific path that none of his colleagues seemed inclined to follow, but which at the end would have led to a ruling in the ACLU's favor.

Why it matters: Almost everything we do on our smartphones and computers involves transferring data to a third party. And if that alone makes that data available to law enforcement without a warrant, then law enforcement will have a bigger window into the private details of Americans' lives than ever before.

"I don't, but I know most people have the phones in the beds with them … it's an appendage now." — Justice Sotomayor

Go deeper

Dave Lawler, author of World
2 hours ago - World

Oxford and AstraZeneca's vaccine won't just go to rich countries

Waiting, in New Delhi. Photo: Jewel Samad/AFP via Getty Images

While the 95% efficacy rates for the Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines are great news for the U.S. and Europe, Monday's announcement from Oxford and AstraZeneca may be far more significant for the rest of the world.

Why it matters: Oxford and AstraZeneca plan to distribute their vaccine at cost (around $3-4 per dose), and have already committed to providing over 1 billion doses to the developing world. The price tags are higher for the Pfizer ($20) and Moderna ($32-37) vaccines.

Updated 3 hours ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Eniola Odetunde/Axios

  1. Vaccines: Key information about the effective COVID-19 vaccines — Oxford University's 90%-effective vaccine.
  2. Health: U.S. coronavirus hospitalizations keep breaking recordsWhy we're numb to 250,000 coronavirus deaths — Americans line up for testing ahead of Thanksgiving.
  3. Travel: Air travel's COVID-created future — Over 1 million U.S. travelers flew on Friday, despite calls to avoid holiday travel.
  4. World: England to impose stricter regional systemU.S. coronavirus hotspots far outpacing Europe's — Portugal to ban domestic travel for national holidays.
  5. Economy: The biggest pandemic labor market drags.
  6. Sports: Coronavirus precautions leave college basketball schedule in flux.

Biden transition names first Cabinet nominees

Biden with John Kerry. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

President-elect Joe Biden on Monday unveiled his nominations for top national security positions in his administration, tapping former Secretary of State John Kerry as his climate czar and former deputy national security adviser Avril Haines as director of national intelligence.

Why it matters: Haines, if confirmed, would make history as the first woman to oversee the U.S. intelligence community. Biden also plans to nominate Alejandro Mayorkas to become the first Latino secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.