Reply With QuoteLand of the free.
God Bless America.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...california.ars
Warrantless cell phone search gets a green light in California
The contents of your cell phone can reveal a lot more about you than the naked eye can: who your friends are, what you've been saying and when, which websites you've visited, and more. There has long been debate over user privacy when it comes to various data found on a cell phone, but according to the California Supreme Court, police don't need a warrant to start digging through your phone's contents.
The ruling comes as a result of the conviction of one Gregory Diaz, who was arrested for trying to sell ecstasy to a police informant in 2007 and had his phone confiscated when he arrived at the police station. The police eventually went through Diaz's text message folder and found one that read "6 4 80." Such a message means nothing to most of us, but it was apparently enough to be used as evidence against Diaz (for those curious, it means six pills will cost $80).
Diaz had argued that the warrantless search of his phone violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but the trial court said that anything found on his person at the time of arrest was "really fair game in terms of being evidence of a crime."
In its review of the case, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment didn't apply to the text messages on Diaz's cell phone at the time of arrest. The court cited a number of previous cases wherein defendants were arrested with all manner of incriminating objects—heroin tablets hidden in a cigarette case, paint chips hidden in clothing, marijuana in the trunk of a car—which did not require a warrant to obtain. The court said that the phone was "immediately associated" with Diaz's person, and therefore the warrantless search was valid.
The decision was not unanimous, though. "The potential intrusion on informational privacy involved in a police search of a person‟s mobile phone, smartphone or handheld computer is unique among searches of an arrestee's person and effects," Justices Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno wrote in dissent.
They went on to argue that the court majority's opinion would allow police "carte blanche, with no showing of exigency, to rummage at leisure through the wealth of personal and business information that can be carried on a mobile phone or handheld computer merely because the device was taken from an arrestee's person. The majority thus sanctions a highly intrusive and unjustified type of search, one meeting neither the warrant requirement nor the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
The courts have gone back and forth in the past on how much privacy protection should be given to data that can be found on a citizen's cell phone. A Pennsylvania District Court ruled in 2008 that law enforcement must get a warrant before acquiring historical records of a cell phone user's physical movements. The same year, the 9th Circuit Court said that the text messages of a police officer had to meet the standards of a reasonable search before law enforcement could access them. In 2010, however, the US Supreme Court said that government employers have the right to read transcripts of employees' e-mails, IMs, texts, and other communications, and that the Fourth Amendment wouldn't protect them from a government search.
South Texas College of Law professor Adam Gershowitz argued in a 2008 paper that the proliferation of iPhone-like devices means that officers fishing through your pockets for weapons can suddenly access a plethora of sensitive documents, not to mention possible passwords. "[S]ince the Supreme Court has ruled that police have broad authority to arrest people for even trivial infractions, such as failure to wear a seat belt, the current rule gives law enforcement officers broad discretion to transform a routine traffic stop into a highly intrusive excavation of your digital life," Ars observed at the time.
Gershowtiz suggested a number of possibilities for how courts could distinguish between an appropriate cell phone search and an inappropriate one, but no such rules exist yet. In the meantime, California citizens may want to be extra careful about what gets stored on their devices, lest the police find a reason to dig up your sexy texts or communications with your private "dispensary."
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Land of the free.
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
What a ridiculous article title. The cell phone was searched AFTER the guy was arrested. It wasn't as if they tapped into his cell phone before an arrest was done.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Hrm. This is sticky. My gut says that when police take a cell phone from someone they've arrested, they should only have access to unencrypted, permanent information on the cell phone, rather than encrypted (passwords) or transient (browsing history) information.
That is to say, anything directly related to the phone itself should be accessible to the police, but anything the phone merely temporarily accesses through data connections should require a warrant.
I have no idea if this opinion of mine holds legal water, and I could easily be convinced that some other criterion is appropriate.
Why does that matter?Originally Posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you arrest someone under suspicion for something, can you take their laptop and open it up and look around?
Do you no longer need a warrant for anything once you arrest someone for anything? That sounds ridiculous.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
So you don't need a warrant to search someone's stuff if you arrest them?
If the man had been carrying a hand written ledger when arrested, would they have needed a warrant to look at it? If not, I see no difference between that and a cell phone. As Imran already stated, it wasn't searched until after the arrest.
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
Baron O RIP.
A cell phone is a computer. Same rules that apply to computers should apply to cell phones.
Would a warrant be needed to open up his laptop and search it post-arrest?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
To me that's the same as a hand written ledger. I don't know if a warrant is needed but I suspect not, since it would be considered part of the arrest. But I am not a legal expert.
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
Baron O RIP.
It's far more than a hand written ledger. Access to a phone can provide access to someone's email, their phone records, their website viewing history, their private conversations, etc. All of which require a warrant last I checked.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Oh no, that doesn't require a warrant anymore. At least, I think I read an article somewhere about how you don't need a warrant to snoop through phones in California or something.
Get with the times.
Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
It's for your own safety.
Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.
Not sure what definition of 'safety' applies to someone being at risk for sorting themselves out a harmless little weed/hash deal.
Well if you'd read the thread about marijuana legalization, you'd know that weed is radioactive.
Do not take anything I say seriously. It's just the Internet. It's not real life.
I agree, the title made it sound like a general approval for warrantless tapping of cell phones. Which would be genuinely outrageous. This? I don't know where the law stands on searching your pockets and crud after you're arrested. I could see either side of this, even if the only information obtained in this case was some lame pot deal.
1011 1100
Americans. For shame.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
BTW, what's the functional difference between tapping a conversation and reviewing a transcript of one stored on a phone?
Also, they need a warrant to get the text messaging history of a person, even AFTER they're arrested, if they go through the wireless carrier. Why is it any different if it's stored on his phone as well?
Am I the only one here with a clear mind?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
He should've set up password protection on his phone.
Has Asher noticed that this is just California, which everyone already knows is a festering rat hole?
That said, they searched his cell phone when he was arrested, it's not like they searched his phone and THEN arrested him. He's already under suspicion for something. They still can't just search the phone of any arbitrary person.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Why doesn't Asher ever complain about public surveillance in London?
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
I already said that (the post #20 thing).
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Being arrested doesn't cause you rights to end.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Why would I need to complain about something so obvious that's been around forever?
I routinely complain about how awful the UK is. Their nannystate Big Brother tendencies are equally awful. I've also complained about the public surveillance they started in downtown Toronto a few years back also.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
No, it doesn't, but restricting the search until after people are arrested (WHICH REQUIRES A WARRANT) means that they can't just harass people for being political enemies.
EDIT: Also, I suspect the choice was either discard the case and let the criminal go free or allow something that at worst only technically infringed his rights.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
:shrug: What if he, for whatever reason, has a printed transcript of the conversation in his pocket? Is the plastic surface of a cell phone some kind of holy barrier the cops can't cross, like medieval church sanctuaries? I mean, I'm uncomfortable with the idea on a gut level, but I can't think of a real, compelling reason why that discomfort should be translated into law.
1011 1100
California has set a precedent that allows the police to search your phone without a warrant. With smartphones, do you not realize the implications there?
On my phone, I've got call logs, text messages, emails, web history, etc. All of that becomes fair game, sans warrant.
That really should bother you.
Let's say I get arrested for punching a retarded Canucks fan. They then search my phone, which was on my person, and see that I've been operating a harem through my text messages and emails on my phone. This is now perfectly possible in California, is it not?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Wow, that is troubling. You shouldn't be doing intensely personal stuff like that on something that could easily fall out of your pocket in the subway, Asher. Let alone be searched by the police. Then again, I don't have a cell phone.
1011 1100
How could it fall out of my jeans pocket?
In the event it's lost/stolen, I can immediately trigger a remote wipe anyway.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
1. Why would they search your phone for punching a hockey fan?
2. Any incriminating evidence discovered from the phone would not be valid as evidence to prosecute a different crime.
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
:(){ :|:& };:
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks