WASHINGTON —- Cellphones and smartphones generally cannot be searched by police without a warrant during arrests, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday in a major clash between privacy and technology.
Ruling on two cases from California and Massachusetts, the justices acknowledged both a right to privacy and a need to investigate crimes. But they came down squarely on the side of privacy rights.
"We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. "Privacy comes at a cost."
The court struck down an extensive smartphone search in California that had been upheld by the state Court of Appeals, as well as a more limited probe of an old flip-top cellphone in Massachusetts that a federal judge already had thrown out.
The justices noted that vast amounts of sensitive data on modern smartphones raise new privacy concerns that differentiate them from other evidence that can be searched. They said police still can examine "the physical aspects of a phone to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon." But once secured, they said, "data on the phone can endanger no one."
It's irrelevant. They'll just get the info from the NSA.
Or find ways to hack into the data without evidence they did anything. Then if they find something, a warrant will "appear" and they'll conduct a search.
Or find ways to hack into the data without evidence they did anything. Then if they find something, a warrant will "appear" and they'll conduct a search.
A little bias, or do you have proof. Did not take long for the hate cops comments to came out.
Originally posted by Formula88: Or find ways to hack into the data without evidence they did anything. Then if they find something, a warrant will "appear" and they'll conduct a search.
What?
Why would someone with those kinds of skills skip the high paying jobs in the security industry to work a dangerous low paying job at the local police department?
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-25-2014).]
Originally posted by maryjane: Don't need a lot of skills, just the right software. XRY. Xamn. Micro Systemation provides the training to use their products.
You need skills to do forensics without leaving evidence you've done forensics. Automated products wont work for that.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 06-25-2014).]
What makes this somewhat interesting to me is that since it was unanimous, or near unanimous, then what was up with the lower court's decision making that made it have to get up to the Supreme Court, where it was essentially a slam dunk?
What makes this somewhat interesting to me is that since it was unanimous, or near unanimous, then what was up with the lower court's decision making that made it have to get up to the Supreme Court, where it was essentially a slam dunk?
State court, appointments and politically held elected offices. Don't know for sure but that is my guess. The higher federal courts are beholden to no one with lifetime appointments. This is a very important distinction when we are depending on people to do the right thing..
State court, appointments and politically held elected offices. Don't know for sure but that is my guess. The higher federal courts are beholden to no one with lifetime appointments. This is a very important distinction when we are depending on people to do the right thing..
Not case in CA. I need to know more about the case. But some of the reasons was obviously based on the phones being on criminals at the time it was found. That now illegal search did fight crime.
Not case in CA. I need to know more about the case. But some of the reasons was obviously based on the phones being on criminals at the time it was found. That now illegal search did fight crime.
Really, lower court judges are not appointed or elected? do tell how they make it to the bench then.
Fighting crime is no excuse for abuse of rights ever, period.
You need skills to do forensics without leaving evidence you've done forensics. Automated products wont work for that.
Rumor has it the State Police in NJ already have cell phone readers. Connect it up, and it copies all the data on the phone to the device. I'm told it takes seconds, and they are already trained in its use. No "hacking" required. Now they have all your contacts, who you called, who called you, all your text messages, too. Based on that, they can find who you've been criminal with, and bust THEM. That should give them enough to get you, too. Without using the data from your phone to convict. Did the decision say "You can't do that." or did it say "It's not admissible in court if you do."?
Now, for those who really don't trust cops, if they find suspicious info, they can get a warrant. Then do the scan again, and call it legal. Now, if you check your phone for their footprints, no problem, they had a warrant. BUT who'd think to check their phone for evidence of hacking if they were never arrested?
Really, lower court judges are not appointed or elected? do tell how they make it to the bench then.
Fighting crime is no excuse for abuse of rights ever, period.
My point was that in CA, we teld to slant to the liberal side of politics. The Judges tend to also be liberal. There rulings are liberal. To sum it up, they tend to not make judgements on facts, but on emotion.
"• At least 25 police departments own a Stingray, a suitcase-size device that costs as much as $400,000 and acts as a fake cell tower. The system, typically installed in a vehicle so it can be moved into any neighborhood, tricks all nearby phones into connecting to it and feeding data to police. In some states, the devices are available to any local police department via state surveillance units. The federal government funds most of the purchases, via anti-terror grants."
"• At least 25 police departments own a Stingray, a suitcase-size device that costs as much as $400,000 and acts as a fake cell tower. The system, typically installed in a vehicle so it can be moved into any neighborhood, tricks all nearby phones into connecting to it and feeding data to police. In some states, the devices are available to any local police department via state surveillance units. The federal government funds most of the purchases, via anti-terror grants."
Please help me understand why that's an issue worth complaining about, or the other complaints about surveillance? Do all of you(complainants) really think that law enforcement agency's are spying on you? Why the worry? I don't think they care about you having a casual conversation with your [fill in the blank], not unless you are doing something illegal. If someone is so worried about being illegally surveilled than why not just stop using all electronic devices? All this quibbling seems kinda pointless, almost seems as if some people are bored and want something to argue about?
Unfortunately the old "if you are not a criminal then why are you worried" argument is why we have the privacy rules in the first place. That same argument can be used for the police to search your house at anytime because "if you are not a criminal...." The reason the above is offensive to me is simple. I DO NOT give up my right to privacy to you or anybody else for ANY REASON. I will NEVER trade my freedom for your security.
There ARE times when they don't need a warrant. One of the articles I read mentioned needing immediate info to track a missing child or to prevent detonating a bomb. They said the police could take it up with the courts after the fact. I'm ok with that.
What makes this somewhat interesting to me is that since it was unanimous, or near unanimous, then what was up with the lower court's decision making that made it have to get up to the Supreme Court, where it was essentially a slam dunk?
This is the eleventh time since January 2012 that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Obama Administration’s arguments for greater governmental power.
Originally posted by sleevePAPA: Please help me understand why that's an issue worth complaining about, or the other complaints about surveillance? Do all of you(complainants) really think that law enforcement agency's are spying on you? Why the worry? I don't think they care about you having a casual conversation with your [fill in the blank], not unless you are doing something illegal. If someone is so worried about being illegally surveilled than why not just stop using all electronic devices? All this quibbling seems kinda pointless, almost seems as if some people are bored and want something to argue about?
If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Right?
Originally posted by sleevePAPA: Please help me understand why that's an issue worth complaining about, or the other complaints about surveillance? Do all of you(complainants) really think that law enforcement agency's are spying on you? Why the worry? I don't think they care about you having a casual conversation with your [fill in the blank], not unless you are doing something illegal. If someone is so worried about being illegally surveilled than why not just stop using all electronic devices? All this quibbling seems kinda pointless, almost seems as if some people are bored and want something to argue about?
The right to privacy is a RIGHT. Period. I shouldn't have to explain why it's bad for police to intercept cell phone signals carte blanche. I shouldn't have to stop using electronic devices to keep from being illegally surveilled. Illegal is illegal. Currently hypothetical situation that may not be hypothetical at some not-too-distant point in the future: "I'm being illegally jailed for speaking out against the government. Huh, guess I should shut up then." Right? RIGHT? The argument is that illegal is fracking ILLEGAL. I shouldn't have to stop exercising my rights because the government is doing something illegal to infringe upon those RIGHTS, and this really shouldn't even be an argument, anyway.
Unfortunately the old "if you are not a criminal then why are you worried" argument is why we have the privacy rules in the first place. That same argument can be used for the police to search your house at anytime because "if you are not a criminal...." The reason the above is offensive to me is simple. I DO NOT give up my right to privacy to you or anybody else for ANY REASON. I will NEVER trade my freedom for your security.
And if you want to be extreme and add shock value too an example. It keeps them from probing your anus anytime they want to. Blunt but accurate. Butt hey! if you've go nothing to hide?
Originally posted by sleevePAPA: Please help me understand why that's an issue worth complaining about, or the other complaints about surveillance? Do all of you(complainants) really think that law enforcement agency's are spying on you? Why the worry? I don't think they care about you having a casual conversation with your [fill in the blank], not unless you are doing something illegal. If someone is so worried about being illegally surveilled than why not just stop using all electronic devices? All this quibbling seems kinda pointless, almost seems as if some people are bored and want something to argue about?
What makes this somewhat interesting to me is that since it was unanimous, or near unanimous, then what was up with the lower court's decision making that made it have to get up to the Supreme Court, where it was essentially a slam dunk?
"Please help me understand why that's an issue worth complaining about, or the other complaints about surveillance? Do all of you(complainants) really think that law enforcement agency's are spying on you? Why the worry? I don't think they care about you having a casual conversation with your [fill in the blank], not unless you are doing something illegal. If someone is so worried about being illegally surveilled than why not just stop using all electronic devices? All this quibbling seems kinda pointless, almost seems as if some people are bored and want something to argue about?" Does that answer your question Frontal Lobe?
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-25-2014).]
Not that I disagree with the concept, but where is this Right to Privacy actually spelled out?
Right here: Cellphones and smartphones generally cannot be searched by police without a warrant during arrests, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday in a major clash between privacy and technology.
quote
Ruling on two cases from California and Massachusetts, the (Supreme Court) justices acknowledged both a right to privacy and a need to investigate crimes. But they came down squarely on the side of privacy rights.
Not that I disagree with the concept, but where is this Right to Privacy actually spelled out?
You have a point. Right to Privacy just doesn't sound strong enough.
quote
AMENDMENT IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I have the RIGHT to secure my person, house, papers AND effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. See that? SEARCHES and seizures. (Carte Blanche collection and listening to/reading of cellular telephone communication falls into the "searches" column) I can't find it right off the top of my web search, but I seem to recall the SCOTUS ruling that electronic communication falls into the "effects" column.
It is in my none-to-professional opinion that the use of a Stingray is unconstitutional. Now to just find a lawyer to take the case...
I gotta' imagine this "going through your phone" happens after you are handcuffed? Can they look through your wallet?
Yes. Once you're under arrest, the cops can legally search and read any papers they find in your possession. This case is an extension of the first "technology" case where it was found legal for cops to search pagers and electronic diaries, etc. They were considered "papers" at that time. This decision significantly changes the landscape of what's searchable on suspects.
The right to privacy is a RIGHT. Period. I shouldn't have to explain why it's bad for police to intercept cell phone signals carte blanche. I shouldn't have to stop using electronic devices to keep from being illegally surveilled. Illegal is illegal. Currently hypothetical situation that may not be hypothetical at some not-too-distant point in the future: "I'm being illegally jailed for speaking out against the government. Huh, guess I should shut up then." Right? RIGHT? The argument is that illegal is fracking ILLEGAL. I shouldn't have to stop exercising my rights because the government is doing something illegal to infringe upon those RIGHTS, and this really shouldn't even be an argument, anyway.
Then you have nothing to worry about, since you are doing nothing illegal.
[This message has been edited by sleevePAPA (edited 06-25-2014).]
Then you have nothing to worry about, since you are doing nothing illegal.
Seriously? You're going to defend an illegal act with "you're not doing anything illegal, so you have nothing to worry about"? So the government gets to skate free on violating the Constitution?
Yes or no question: The Constitution provides an inalienable right to safeguard your person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
What is your definition of "Unreasonable searches and seizures", and how does that fit in with your "If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" statement?
Please explain why me wanting to secure myself from unreasonable searches and seizures, as afforded by the Constitution, automatically puts me in the crosshairs of various governmental law enforcement agencies.
Then you have nothing to worry about, since you are doing nothing illegal.
Doesn't matter if i'm not doing anything wrong. I have a right to hide my life from the government. Unless there is a court order due to proven suspicion of wrong doing, its none of their business what i am eating, or how often i walk my dog or take a leak.. ( examples of legal activity )
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 06-26-2014).]
This is a prime example of the 'government' trying to cheat things 'well, the founding fathers never dreamed of digital devices so they dont count'. no they didnt, but they knew things would change and advance so they worded things very carefully when they outlined the rights that cant be violated..
Then you have nothing to worry about, since you are doing nothing illegal.
Are you REALLY sure that you don't have SOMETHING incriminating in your house, in your car, on your phone, etc, that could be used against you? Maybe the last person who borrowed your phone took an up-skirt photo without you knowing. Maybe a friend you gave a ride to left the remnants of a joint under your seat.
