>Stingrays don't "force" your cell phone to do anything. Your cell phone reaches out and connects to it of its own accord.
A distinction without a difference. That's the nature of the prevailing wireless telephony technology. Users wouldn't be able to receive telephone calls if their equipment didn't coordinate periodically with the cellular system's base stations. Although a system that doesn't constantly leak user's data could conceivably be constructed, that is not what is currently in use. Turning one's phone off to avoid tracking isn't a good solution because then the device has ceased being a telephone.
>Your phone transmits your private data into the aether at the user's direction.
No, nobody directs their phone to 'transmit their private data into the aether' people direct their phones to place and receive telephone calls.
>I think this fact has major Constitutional implications.
I think you're inventing a business case for some group such as Aereo's engineers to form another technology company whose purpose is to engineer around weaknesses in the law.
> The police should not need a warrant to access information that you carelessly broadcast onto the public airwaves.
Telephone calls are private. Nobody would select 'carelessly broadcast my information' in their privacy options. The change in technology doesn't render privacy protections in the law moot.
>I don't think there is any privacy expectation there
I hope you're in the minority.
>(another example of judges not understanding technology?).
Perhaps they've rightly noted that a particular weakness of the technology du jour is unrelated to the individual's legal right to privacy.