Supreme Court Rules Unanimously: Police Need Warrants to Search Cell Phone Data

[Ideologue]

We know you're a totalitarian monster, and one of the rare few who admits it and is proud of it. You don't have to remind us every day.

I am not.  I didn't say they could gun you down in the street without a trial.

There is nothing intrinsically totalitarian about a surveillance state.  Totalitarian states had surveillance organs, but they also had water treatment plants and roads.

The signatures of a totalitarian state are the lack of democratic accountability and the lack of freedom of expression and freedom of movement, not any putative right to privacy that permits an enormous amount of discreet criminal activity.  As long as accountability and the core freedoms are observed--and there is no reason to think wiretaps or searches during otherwise-reasonable detentions would magically infringe upon them--all you have is a much safer country with much, much, much happier people.

[sbr]

This is, again, where I point out how some people have no actual practical care at all for the concept of "liberty" when it comes to any actual application of the idea in real life. It is just pure lip service.

Had the same argument with a pal at work today.  He quoted Ben Franklin and I said I didn't agree with the premise.  Just because something is pithy doesn't make it true.

Explain to me how anyone is harmed by searching a smartphone (or, for that matter, a wiretap or video surveillance).  (I'm kidding, you can't explain it to my satisfaction and I won't convince you either.  But I do trust you have sounder reasons than "the cop will use my debit card.")

If you were the only person that was making this type of an argument I would just ignore this, but you are not. 

It's crazy that we are now at place that we have to explain how our basic rights aren't being violated.  Those rights are ours no matter what we do or say, it is on the government/police/lawyers/etc to prove otherwise.

[Ideologue]

Oh, to be clear, I never said it wasn't a proper reading of the Constitution.

But, for what it's worth, consider that a surveillance state would not just prevent crime--it would also prevent innocent persons from being imprisoned by an imperfect justice system, a price that should never have to paid by anyone, even for peaceful law and order.  Consider that.

[Berkut]

This is, again, where I point out how some people have no actual practical care at all for the concept of "liberty" when it comes to any actual application of the idea in real life. It is just pure lip service.

Had the same argument with a pal at work today.  He quoted Ben Franklin and I said I didn't agree with the premise.  Just because something is pithy doesn't make it true.

Explain to me how anyone is harmed by searching a smartphone (or, for that matter, a wiretap or video surveillance).  (I'm kidding, you can't explain it to my satisfaction and I won't convince you either.  But I do trust you have sounder reasons than "the cop will use my debit card.")

It's true, your odds of convincing me that the 4th Amendment is of no value are quite slim.

[Berkut]

Oh, to be clear, I never said it wasn't a proper reading of the Constitution.

But, for what it's worth, consider that a surveillance state would not just prevent crime--it would also prevent innocent persons from being imprisoned by an imperfect justice system, a price that should never have to paid by anyone, even for peaceful law and order.  Consider that.

That is a good point - lord knows the historical record of police states is really outstanding when it comes to making sure the innocent are never imprisoned.

[Syt]

In Vu police are already executing a search of the person's home - case says the warrant must be specific to also search the computers found there.  I have no particular problem with that submission.

BB, if you read the case more carefully the Court describes smart phones as being computers.

Especially if your smartphone syncs with your home computer, e.g. because you're using your Google account on all of them. Now you could say that you shouldn't link your data then, or that you shouldn't carry your smartphone around. But that's not life reality, and though my memory of the law lectures is hazy, I seem to recall that among many other things laws should reflect life reality and adapt to it (within reason, of course).

It comes back to an article from a few weeks ago about having to determine what is reasonably expected privacy in the digital age. Is something not private, just because it's relatively easily accessible? Sure, everything I put out in the open (facebook, posting here etc.) - obviously not private, or not less private, at least, than having a conversation in the street or in a bar. Email accounts that require a password to access, even though you can intercept emails between sender and recipient? The GPS data from your phone?

IMHO it's all murky and won't be solved in one or two debates. This will be a process that will go on for years and determine how we will conduct ourselves digitally in ten or twenty years, with a change in legislation as well as mindsets.

That said, I'm glad to live in a place where I don't have to worry about a policeman searching my phone or a SWAT team tossing flashbangs into my bed because they messed up the address.

[The Brain]

Ide wants America to be like Canada where you get sent to Machiavellian pound-you-in-the-ass gaol if you carry your phone around.

[grumbler]

Ide wants America to be like Canada where you get sent to Machiavellian pound-you-in-the-ass gaol if you carry your phone around.

I don;t think Ide has ever met a cop, prosecutor, or government bureaucrat.  If he had, he would realize that his utopian ideal of giving those folks complete access to his every move and idea in order to prevent anyone from being falsely accused of a crime is going to result in more crime, not less.  The nature of the criminal activity will shift from criminals being freelancers with imperfect information to being government employees with perfect information.

I, again, call on Ide to put his money where his mouth is.  If complete lack of privacy is such a great idea, then let him broadcast his own activities on the internet 24/7.  Then, no one will be able to falsely accuse him of crimes.

[crazy canuck]

Explain to me how anyone is harmed by searching a smartphone

They dont teach things like that in the law school you attended?

[The Minsky Moment]

But, for what it's worth, consider that a surveillance state would not just prevent crime--it would also prevent innocent persons from being imprisoned by an imperfect justice system, a price that should never have to paid by anyone, even for peaceful law and order.  Consider that.

Wow.  I did not figure you to be so staggeringly naive.

Long experience demonstrates that the best way to protect the innocent is to put checks and restrictions on the government.  Not to broaden its powers.

[The Minsky Moment]

This is, again, where I point out how some people have no actual practical care at all for the concept of "liberty" when it comes to any actual application of the idea in real life. It is just pure lip service.

Had the same argument with a pal at work today.  He quoted Ben Franklin and I said I didn't agree with the premise.  Just because something is pithy doesn't make it true.

Explain to me how anyone is harmed by searching a smartphone (or, for that matter, a wiretap or video surveillance).  (I'm kidding, you can't explain it to my satisfaction and I won't convince you either.  But I do trust you have sounder reasons than "the cop will use my debit card.")

If only you believed in God, you would be the perfect modern day reincarnation of a 17th century Puritan fanatic.

[grumbler]

This is, again, where I point out how some people have no actual practical care at all for the concept of "liberty" when it comes to any actual application of the idea in real life. It is just pure lip service.

Had the same argument with a pal at work today.  He quoted Ben Franklin and I said I didn't agree with the premise.  Just because something is pithy doesn't make it true.

Explain to me how anyone is harmed by searching a smartphone (or, for that matter, a wiretap or video surveillance).  (I'm kidding, you can't explain it to my satisfaction and I won't convince you either.  But I do trust you have sounder reasons than "the cop will use my debit card.")

If only you believed in God, you would be the perfect modern day reincarnation of a 17th century Puritan fanatic.

I am not sure he wants to allow everyone to read everyone else's cell phone records because it will help prevent dancing.

[Barrister]

But, for what it's worth, consider that a surveillance state would not just prevent crime--it would also prevent innocent persons from being imprisoned by an imperfect justice system, a price that should never have to paid by anyone, even for peaceful law and order.  Consider that.

Wow.  I did not figure you to be so staggeringly naive.

Long experience demonstrates that the best way to protect the innocent is to put checks and restrictions on the government.  Not to broaden its powers.

I can't find the case at the moment, but our courts have commented on how DNA can help to remove suspicion from the innocent, as well as identify the guilty.  It depends on the circumstance, but that can be a valid consideration.

[crazy canuck]

But, for what it's worth, consider that a surveillance state would not just prevent crime--it would also prevent innocent persons from being imprisoned by an imperfect justice system, a price that should never have to paid by anyone, even for peaceful law and order.  Consider that.

Wow.  I did not figure you to be so staggeringly naive.

Long experience demonstrates that the best way to protect the innocent is to put checks and restrictions on the government.  Not to broaden its powers.

I can't find the case at the moment, but our courts have commented on how DNA can help to remove suspicion from the innocent, as well as identify the guilty.  It depends on the circumstance, but that can be a valid consideration.

I am beginning to worry about you BB.  Are you suggesting that a surveillance state is beneficial because DNA evidence may help to remove suspicion in some cases?

[The Brain]

But, for what it's worth, consider that a surveillance state would not just prevent crime--it would also prevent innocent persons from being imprisoned by an imperfect justice system, a price that should never have to paid by anyone, even for peaceful law and order.  Consider that.

Wow.  I did not figure you to be so staggeringly naive.

Long experience demonstrates that the best way to protect the innocent is to put checks and restrictions on the government.  Not to broaden its powers.

I can't find the case at the moment, but our courts have commented on how DNA can help to remove suspicion from the innocent, as well as identify the guilty.  It depends on the circumstance, but that can be a valid consideration.

I am beginning to worry about you BB. 

lol