TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote: It seems some think this is related to what the NSA was/is doing. It is a different issue. The NSA is spying on innocent citizens along with some thought to be terrorists. This issue is about searching phone and computer data based upon PC and/or properly issued search warrant. Why do some think a phone or computer should exempt from a search as a result of a properly issued search warrant when ones house, body or car isn't? Should searches be eliminated completely?

Mojo, you're right - what the NSA is a bit different.. It just lends to more government mistrust.

However - as mentioned above, the supreme court had to rule on cases where LEOs were searching cell phones, so the police were doing it also... Particularly incident to arrest, which I don't mind so much.. But sometimes they were doing it w/o an arrest, which is troublesome.

Now that texting while driving is illegal (at least where I am), I think we can agree that you might get stopped for "legal" activity that may appear to look like texting. For instance, viewing a map on your phone. Although one might argue that this is "distracted driving" and is just as dangerous (I'd agree) - it's not illegal behavior.. At least not yet and there is no practical way for an officer to tell the difference as the SMS-radar isn't widespread.

The supreme court case doesn't throw out LEOs ability to search cell phones when probable cause exists. To me, this still leaves a huge loophole.. If I'm handling the phone while driving, I may be stopped, and probable cause exists to search my phone as I was stopped for a phone-related offense and that phone contains evidence of the crime. It's still going to be pretty trivial for officers to make a case that would support searching the phone in the modern era.

Sorry, I don't want officers looking through my phone.

I believe they should be able to do so with a court-issued warrant, but not not as incident to being detained...

mojo84 wrote:Why do some think a phone or computer should exempt from a search as a result of a properly issued search warrant when ones house, body or car isn't?

It doesn't sound like anybody is saying phones should be exempt from the 4th Amendment. On the contrary, they're arguing they should be included in the 4th Amendment to require a warrant and the 5th Amendment also applies.

Like the stolen gold example, the cops can search if they have a warrant, but the accused shouldn't be compelled to help them.

If there is a backdoor open to the government it will also be open to any sufficiently tech savvy bad guys. Deliberately weakening security so the government can snoop is stupid. The number of evil purposes that can exploit security flaws is only limited by the imagination.

Encryption is a good thing. Relying on Apple for your encryption may not be.

victory wrote:Encryption is a good thing. Relying on Apple for your encryption may not be.

Certainly, with their slow to release patch for the BASH/Shellshock vulnerability, they've got a black eye, no doubt. They just released the patch day before yesterday. After installing it on all my machines, I found out that they only patched 2 of the 3 known vulnerabilities.

For years now, Macs have been a safer bet than PCs in terms of protection from viruses, not because they can't be infected, but because they were too small a market share to bother with for the cretins who write these things. That's not so much the case any longer. What really perturbed me about their slow response on releasing the patch is that I have 2 LAMP webservers, and both were patched within a day of the initial news reports. Apple took several more days.

That's not right.

Ignoring the differing contentions & merits of this case, the question is....if LEO's can assume your identity to snare dopers in this manner, whats stopping them from exploiting our phone info for other purposes?

"If I'm cooperating with law enforcement, and law enforcement says, 'Can I search your phone?' and I hand it over to them, my expectation is that they will search the phone for evidence of a crime — not that they will take things that are not evidence off my phone and use it in another context," Cardozo said,

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireSt ... e-26022224


Walking a fine line here - or to quote one of our masters of diction, this is kinda sorta skootchie.

Jim Beaux wrote:Ignoring the differing contentions & merits of this case, the question is....if LEO's can assume your identity to snare dopers in this manner, whats stopping them from exploiting our phone info for other purposes?

[
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireSt ... e-26022224


Walking a fine line here - or to quote one of our masters of diction, this is kinda sorta skootchie.

Good question...and a good example of governmental "overreach" based on technological advances, that were never envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has slowly chipped away at the protections granted us in the 4th Amendment for the last 100 years. Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in a dissenting opinion in a 1928 court case where the SCOTUS approved warrantless wiretapping with a 5 to 4 vote:

"The progress of science with furnishing the Government with means of espionage is not likely to stop with wiretapping. Ways may someday be developed by which the Government, without removing papers from secret drawers, can reproduce them in court, and by which it will be able to expose to a jury the most intimate occurrences of the home. Time and again this court, in giving effect to the principle underlying the 4th Amendment, has refused to place an unduly literal construction upon it...the protection guaranteed by the amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, against the Government, the right to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the 4th Amendment."