The iPhone Meets the Fourth Amendment 505
background image writes "According to Alan M Gershowitz, the doctrine of "search incident to arrest" may allow devices such as mobile phones, PDAs and laptops to be thoroughly searched without either probable cause or warrants [PDF download below abstract]. Incriminating evidence found in such searches may be used against you whether or not it is germane to the reason for the original arrest. He notes, 'Obviously, the framers of the Fourth Amendment could not have conceived of a handheld technological device like the iPhone, and courts have not yet been called upon to answer most of the difficult questions posed by such devices.' We've discussed similar search issues recently, as well as other privacy concerns related to modern technology.
In archaic terms... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, to stay on topic, I must concur that this is so damn obvious - cells and laptops being the modern equivalent of papers - that this should have been addressed a long time ago.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:4, Insightful)
The word "militia" must be read in the context of when the document was written. The modern day definition is quite different.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html [guncite.com]Re:In archaic terms... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:5, Informative)
Someone thought they should mod this funny, but the parent poster is correct.
Dig up an unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, and check out the definition for "regulated". There are examples dating back to the 1600's that use this term when referring to a militia, although they are now considered obsolete or archaic. In the context of a militia, the most appropriate synonym for "well-regulated" in the 17th and 18th centuries would be "effective" in the 21st century.
However, the first clause wasn't intended to limit the second clause. The Congressional Record shows that a "collective" interpretation was proposed in the Senate during the debate of the Bill of Rights by adding "for the common defense" (a phrase that was in at least one of the original 13 state constitutions). It was explicitly voted down.
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:5, Insightful)
But that begs the question, maintain a militia effective against what? The answer of course is that it is intended to allow for a militia effective against a government that oversteps it's bounds. However in odrer to be effective against the current government, not only would the gun control laws against fully automatic adn assault rifles have to be revoked, but people/militias would have to be legally be allowed to keep and practice with things like rocket propelled grenades. But as the much lauded rarely seen American spirit of Independence has vanished from our cultural mindset, so has the idea that we should maintain the ability to over throw our own government. In short, the more people actually believe the lie "The pen is mightier. than the sword" the more they have forgotten "Power flows from the barrel of a gun". The people who are spending 15% of every one of your paychecks [warresisters.org] on a war machine want you to go on thinking that rallies and op-ed pieces are as effective as "a well regulated militia". Do you really think that if millions of Americans were actually empowered to forcibly protect their rights, that we submit to The Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, etc?
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, I've seen this argument used before... However, with a little bit of thought, it's easy to observe that it's not true. Even with all of the protection and secret service and the FBI and the CIA and the NSA, it still only takes one well aimed bullet to kill a human, and if you can see them, they're vulnerable. Look at Kennedy. All of the nuclear weapons, machine guns, rockets, body guards in the world couldn't have saved him from a few shots from a gun that's comparable in power and range to most hunting rifles. This is why so many states are interested in outlawing
At any rate, if the people get angry enough to turn against the government, the government officials, even if they manage to evade being immediately killed will not live much of a life--if they poke their heads out even a little, they'll get wiped out... Doesn't matter if it's from a mile away, or a few feet away. Plus, consider that our military during times of peace consists of volunteers. They're citizens, and people just as you are. You really think most of the armed forces are going to unload their stuff on their own people, because they're ordered to do so? Hell, chances are they'll work their way up the ladder just the same.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the parent was talking about the threat of force, not its actual use. Further, political assassinations are totally useless. The government is like the mafia. If one person vacates his position, there are a hundred more criminals in line to take his place. And finally, such events give the government the power of sympathy and makes martyrs out of crooked politicians. Really, everything is to the advantage of the government if such an action is taken.
The States having independent militaries
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:5, Insightful)
Using that logic, it would also be completely fair to ban or severely censor the Internet, because it is far more effective than the 18th century printing press.
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, you say that using my logic, one could ban the Internet because it is more effective than the printing press. This is incorrect. First of all, there isn't such a thing as "too much" freedom of speech, or "too much" freedom of the press. As I already demonstrated, however, there is such as thing as "too much" right to bear arms. Therefore, while no line needs to be drawn for freedom of the press, one does need to be drawn for the right to bear arms. Secondly, and more importantly, I am not arguing that assault rifles are too effective; I am arguing that while they might be protected by the letter of the law, they are not covered by the spirit of it.
To use an example, suppose that in the future, the phrase "the Press" becomes slang for "randomly kill someone on the street for sport." Would you then have freedom of "the Press?" Certainly not! The spirit of the Second Amendment is to allow you to be able to protect yourself and your neighbors, either from an intruder, a foreign government, or a hostile domestic one. As long as you are able to do this, your rights are preserved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the second amendment was meant to be an effective means of allowing the citizens to protect themselves from an oppressive government, the nuclear arms wouldn't be part of the picture. It would take a dumb mother fucker to think they could detonate a nuclear missile on his own people to retain control and power. It just wouldn't happen.
So at the risk of sounding like I am attempting to interpret the constitution f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His point is that a line has to be drawn. He notes that no one sanely argues that the US constitution secures the citizen right to bear nuclear arms. Therefore, he concludes, the right secured by the constitution is not absolute and, in consequence, there are both arms which citizens can bear and arms which they cannot. Now, the constitution does not specify where the line is to be drawn, so, as the GP clearly concluded, a line needs to be drawn.
His logic is perfect.
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How about 'automatic firearm'? Anything where you can hold down the trigger to hose down an area with bullets goes against the rules of safe handling I was taught.
You mean the things that have been illeagal without a class 3 license since the 1930s?
Yes, this includes such things as machine pistols, which are not assault rifles by dint of not being rifles, but assault rifle is a stupid term anyway.
Tell me, what does "assault rifle" meant to you? Because, to Clinton and those who rely on people like you to be ignorant, it means "guns that look like military rifles but aren't", yet to those in the know, it has a very specific definition.
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that the current wording does guarantee the right to possess nukes, so long as you can actually afford to purchase said nukes, or the equipment to produce them. At least insofar as your facilities and stored materials don't impact your neighbors' health.
You should keep in mind that 18th century arms also included field artillery, swivel guns, shore bombardment cannons, flares, fragmentation grenades, rockets and bombs. And which, due to the prohibition (which technically still exists as far as I can read) on congress maintaining a standing army, would have to have been held by private citizens.
The bill of rights is not an enumeration of your rights. It is an enumeration of a specific few rights considered important enough to explicitly prohibit the government from infringing. If the government is not given explicit authority to do something by the constitution, you're supposed to assume that it does not have that authority.
You might say that it shouldn't guarantee that right, in which case, feel free to propose and promote a constitutional amendment altering the second amendment guarantee. Depending on your wording, you'd probably get a fair bit of support, possibly even the NRA would support you depending on the nature of the proposed restrictions.
But this is the problem with the anti-gun nuts: for whatever reason, they don't really believe their agenda is a popular one, so they work through corrupt or intellectually shallow politicians and activist judges to subvert the constitution and undermine the will of the people.
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:4, Informative)
Since when does the Federal Government have the authority to make this decision at all? The point of the Second Amendment is that the States should decide. If people in one state want to ban weapons, fine. That is their prerogative. If the people of another state want to have no restrictions, that is also fine. This is why it is called the United States (countries), and not "America" (which happens to be a continent).
I cannot see how the Constitution allows the Federal Government any say in this whatsoever.
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:5, Insightful)
An assault rifle is somewhat of a gray area, but I think that such a weapon is generally not thought of as a defensive weapon. Hence the name "assault".So forbidding assault weapons is likely outside of the "bear-ing" limit. A good hunting rifle, shotgun or a pistol of some sort would make a reasonable defensive weapon against criminals.
In the context of that interpretation, if an American citizen is defending themselves against Federal troops commanded by a rogue Administration striving to grab power via military force, they need weapons that are effective against those used by the Federal troops in localized battles. Clearly if the military has full auto guns or even selective fire assault weapons, only the similar level will do to defend against that force. I think most nukes however fall outside that level... To use a nuke in a "neighborhood defense" situation would be senseless - sure, you'd kill the attacking force, but you'd also destroy your neighborhood, your neighbors, and yourself.
From a practical standpoint, a rogue U.S. Administration that has to take power by fighting house-to-house against well armed American citizens will quickly fail. As each individual soldier looks into the eyes of yet another person who could easily be their brother, sister, mother, father, son, or daughter (and, occasionally, will actually be!) and kill them in cold blood to avoid their own demise, the soldiers will eventually (probably within a few hours of the Federal power grab) turn their weapons on their commanders and defect (along with their equipment) from the dark side. On the other hand, if the populace is unable to defend themselves, lesser and nonlethal (and hence much more palatable to individual soldiers/police) force (simple commands, stun grenades, Tasers etc) can be used to gain compliance. The latter approach would (I hope) fail eventually, but could continue for days/weeks/months/years with some combat situations ending up being very deadly (some groups of citizens who have a strong visceral desire to be free will die trying to avoid subjugation even if the odds are high they will fail and die trying).
The Founders didn't anticipate the power of modern weapons any more than they anticipated the power and potential of abuse of the Internet in the free speech arena. IMHO, they may have made abuse of these mediums (powerful weapons and the Internet) punishable by very stiff penalties, but they would not have banned or regulated them heavily in areas that would have hobbled their use under the Second or First Amendments.
Re: (Score:3)
More importantly, the definition of "the People", to whom the right to bear arms is granted, has not changed at all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:4, Insightful)
I kind of thought that was the purpose of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is not an independent clause. It's dependent. This is easily observable by the lack of a verb.
Err... that requires more than an assertion.
Arguing over the 2A is kind of funny, considering there is so much documentation about its inception in the federalist papers and from the federalist convention.
As it was originally written by James Madison:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
It was however ratified t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the context of the times, I can see them stating that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an essential detail in keeping a well regulated militia... which, in turn, is an essential detail in keeping a "free state".
Define free state as you will, but
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you going to also argue that the 4th Amendment only grants a "collective" right to be free from searches? In both cases, the right is called "The right of the people "
Re:In archaic terms... (Score:4, Insightful)
In detail (with respect to the 2nd Amendment)... you are completely full of shit, so much so that if someone squeezed your head, you'd become a chocolate fountain.
The RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. In deference to the militia? Sure, make me muster once a month in the town square with my shotgun and
Read some Jefferson, you'll come away with a different perspective on most everything regarding personal liberty...
As you can see, this is a very personal issue with me, considering all the mamby-pamby mushmouths trying to take my right away, that they clearly have NO authority or ability to do... but they still try. The Constitution is sacred... the Bill of Rights is sacred... that means I will defend it with my life if need be... and if it means eliminating people who are trying to undo that... so be it.
I am flexible on just about everything (but Disney... fuck them in the ass with a big rubber dick)... but the Constitution is not up to "negotiation" in my book. And I will not surrender my rights for ANY reason... my freedom is too precious to give away so someone can feel better about themselves.
As a gun owner, anti-gun people can march on the White House steps for all I care... it doesn't change MY RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR arms. Sorry... case closed.
notebook? papers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They seems to toss out the 1st and 4th all the time if it 'digital information', like its something different.
Yes and No (Score:3, Informative)
If they think they "may contain evidence that you can destroy" and they have arrested you, it looks like the Supreme Court has ruled yes.
I imagine you would inform them of that when you discover they intend to read/confiscate it. And then it is completely inadmissable in court. And
The Fourth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let them try to hack it instead.
Re:The Fourth (Score:5, Funny)
And then sue them under the DMCA for breaking the DRM-encryption on your copyrighted, poor-quality-recording rants about government intrusion!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have no obligation under the 4th amendment to give them the combination to the safe, but with a warrant they do have the right to try to break into it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The Fourth (Score:5, Informative)
Lock your phone people and then provide the code when a warrant is given. Nothing is in plain view and therefore not subject to search without *consent* or *warrant*.
The fourth only protects against 'unreasonable' searches without a warrant. A search incident to a lawful arrest has been, for almost a century, been (per SCOTUS interpretation) reasonable, and requires no warrant nor consent. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 392 (1914): "the right on the part of the Government, always recognized under English and American law, to search the person of the accused when legally arrested to discover and seize the fruits or evidences of crime. This right has been uniformly maintained in many cases."
Or, "The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search persons lawfully arrested while committing crime and to search the place where the arrest is made in order to find and seize things connected with the crime as its fruits or as the means by which it was committed, as well as weapons and other things to effect an escape from custody, is not to be doubted." Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30 (1925)
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218. 235 (1973): A custodial arrest of a suspect based on probable cause is a reasonable intrusion under the Fourth Amendment; that intrusion being lawful, a search incident to the arrest requires no additional justification. It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a `reasonable' search under that Amendment."
This is pretty old stuff, every first-year law student gets this in Constitutional Criminal Procedure. I'm not aware of any SCOTUS case law directly on point, but lower courts have been applying SILA ("Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest") to electronic devices for decades, e.g., United States v. Lynch, 908 F.Supp. 284, 287 (D.V.I. 1995): "the search and retrieval of the telephone numbers from [the defendant's] pager was justified as being incident to a valid arrest, even though [the defendant] had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the pager." (Cited with approval in U.S. v. BROOKES, Crim. No. 2004-0154 (V.I. 2005).) Cellphones and pagers have been held to be akin to wallets and address books which, if on a suspect's person or within the sphere of his immediate control at the time of arrest, are fair game.
So, not exactly sure how this is news; it's certainly nothing new.
Re:The Fourth (Score:5, Insightful)
As the device is controlled during your detention and you are no longer able to destroy evidence on the device or the digital data could hardly be called a weapon, there hardly seems any legal scope for accessing the private data on the device. Rather than allowing an individual to peruse your personal data for their own deviant gratification or allowing the confiscation of an expensive electronic device as a prima facie penalty for failing to show the proper grovelling respect (the cost of extended loss of use of the device, possibly years!?, hence the cost of replacement as well as the loss of access to the data and software contained within the device) and an ego based demonstration of power.
The whole idea of warrants is specifically an attempt to prevent abuses of power, harassment of individuals and the corrupt planting of evidence. In the case of digital 'evidence' the ability to plant false evidence is dangerously easy and virtually impossible to defend against, so there is no excuse not to ensure as much public oversight over that process as possible. Much the same for when you are questioned, that your lawyer be present perhaps the same should carry through to any electronic personal data storage device as it is very much a personal extension of an individuals own thoughts and private opinions.
TrueCrypt (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Step 1: E-mail an iPhone owner [child porn/Terrorist manuals/something about drugs/...]
Step 2: Call the police
Step 3: Search incident to arrest uncovers the evidence
This is even easier than SWATting [ph33r.org] and with onion routing & pay phones, it's won't get traced back to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is needed is a dual pass phrase encryption application. Enter the legit code and you get access to your data. Enter an alternate and it opens a volume with 'manufactured' information. Like an e-mail from the police chief's nephew inquiring about the next meth delivery. Or a text message where you kindly refuse the mayor's request to borrow your 4 year old
Re:TrueCrypt (Score:4, Interesting)
If we've got a judge making that order we're pretty safe from having it searched automatically as part of an arrest for something unrelated. They've got you before a judge!! That would be entirely reasonable.
What is needed is a dual pass phrase encryption application. Enter the legit code and you get access to your data. Enter an alternate and it opens a volume with 'manufactured' information.
Providing the 'alternate', if they figured it out, would amount to contempt of court and compound your problems. (*IF* they figured it out... but if the main selling feature of the encryption tool you are using is this 'dual pass phrase' stuff... you can bet they'll be sucpicious if they're even slightly savvy.)
What is REALLY needed are laws that make the contents of your laptop protected, so that you can't be compelled to hand them over at the drop of a hat. So they need a damned good reason along with a warrant before it happens... and even -then- there should be limitations on what they are allowed to use as evidence when they find something if its not what they are warranted to look for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That turns out not to be the case, at least not yet. It's not completely settled law yet, but it's certainly reasonable right now to take the stance that even when it's protecting material that the police may search, passwords are protected by your right against self incrimintation [computerworld.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Truecrypt volume that hides my financial information. I use GnuCash on Linux, and was somewhat bothered by the fact that it offered on way to protect your financial data (something I consider fairly sensitive). So I set up a script that initiates truecrypt which then asks me for a password. Once the volume has mounted, it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law only get's in the way of the undereducated (Score:5, Interesting)
Come on people, Hackers, spies, political dissidents, and those persecuted by their government have had to do this all their lives. Now all US citizens have to do the same.
it's the price we pay for being safe from T E R R O R I S M .
Encrypt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hiding those things are better than encryption... they cant interrogate you about something they did not find.
PS, micro SD cards hide nicely under large postage stamps on envelopes and in between layers of cardboard on boxes.
whoah, easy there man! (Score:3, Funny)
When you type terrorism all freaky and forboding like that, it makes me want to vote for bush. He's not even running. wth?
iPhone plug? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On a serious note, though - every Blackberry can be password-protected. Enter an incorrect password a user-definable number of times, and the device's memory is wiped.
Stopping AT&T from turning over your call records without a warrant is still beyond the average user's power, unfortunately.
Nothing to do with the iPhone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
redundant obvious response: my little black book (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? Have you been smoking the meth again?
There is NOTHING radical about the difference between a pocket sized notebook (little black book) and an iphone.
So it can record your voice instead of having to use a pen or pencil and writing information down.
Whatever. Nobody believes US law has anything to do with the constitution any more anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I must say (Score:2)
"He notes, 'Obviously, the framers of the Fourth Amendment could not have conceived of a handheld technological device like the iPhone..."
What part of that makes it acceptable to completely and utterly violate somebody's privacy like that? Last time I checked you don't search anything be it an iPhone or a school locker unless you suspect something illegal is involved. I don't have an iPhone but this is all the more reason I'm not getting one.
This applies to all handhelds (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What part of that makes it acceptable to completely and utterly violate somebody's privacy like that?
Cops use the all encompassing, "in my experience as a police officer, drug distributors and users often use electronic devices and computers to store information related to their drug buying/dealing." The police always seize computers when they raid houses for drugs.
The "war on drugs" has been simply ruinous for the U.S.; the police have been transformed into a paramilitary force, and Constitutional protections for everyone else have been watered down. All of this money spent, freedom lost, and people
That is one organized... (Score:5, Funny)
Steve Jobs wins (Score:3, Funny)
Dan East
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is in a world of hurt if iPhone refers to any cellphone. Because, once it becomes a noun, it can no longer be a trademark and anyone can make an iPhone. Xerox and Johnson & Johnson (with Band-aid) were both facing similar issues. I believe Xerox won the fight for the generic noun to be something else and Johnson & Johnson failed, although I may have flipped the two.
Hyperbolic (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, the iphone and laptops increase the amount of information a person is likely to have on her, but it's not a new issue. As a couple of posters have pointed out, the same problem arises when the arrestee is carrying a notebook or briefcase with documents. Given the Supreme Court's narrow cases on this doctrine, it seems unlikely that they're going to allow admission of the embezzlement evidence the police found on your iphone when they arrested you for drunk driving.
Call me when this happens (Score:3, Insightful)
For now, there _is_ an expectation of privacy for your data, and until a law says otherwise you can expect that the results of a warrantless search to be thrown out. And if they aren't, you can appeal it up to the supreme court, at which point _they'll_ thrown them out. Period. There is no argument that can be made, even to people that don't understand computers, that makes computers any different than (paper) notebooks. Hell, there are even laws against computer trespassing. That law all but explicitly says that computers have an expectation of privacy.
Finally, here's the other thing to keep in mind: How are they getting you iPhone/laptop anyway. Even if there's no expectation of privacy for the data, there is (usually) for where it's physically sitting. It's not like a cop can walk up to your house and say: "Hi, I'm here to search you computers without a warrant". If they did, you don't have to let them in.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of discussion about stuff like this, but it's meaningless. The fact of the matter is, until the law or the courts say otherwise, your data is protected under the fourth amendment. Oh sure, law enforcement _wants_ to be able to search your data without a warrant, but they also would like to search your house and your car and just about anything else without a warrant too.
For now, there _is_ an expectation of privacy for your data, and until a law says otherwise you can expect that the results of a warrantless search to be thrown out. And if they aren't, you can appeal it up to the supreme court, at which point _they'll_ thrown them out. Period. There is no argument that can be made, even to people that don't understand computers, that makes computers any different than (paper) notebooks. Hell, there are even laws against computer trespassing. That law all but explicitly says that computers have an expectation of privacy.
As the first link in the article explains, when you get lawfully arrested, the police is allowed to search for weapons (to prevent you from using them) and to search for evidence (so you don't hide it or destroy it). With the reasoning behind that, they could most likely take your iPhone away from you, so that you can't delete any evidence that might be on it. However, they wouldn't be allowed to check its contents without a search warrant.
If it turns out that the iPhone was stolen (and the fact that it
Re:Call me when this happens (Score:4, Interesting)
A policeman can arrest you for anything, whether its valid or not is to be decided in the courts later. After the arrest, they can search the "area" you were arrested in. Anything they find, even if its not related to why you were arrested, is fair game to be used against you for new charges.
I will give you an example (that actually happened). You are pulled over for speeding. The cop asks if he can search your car, you say "no" and are within your rights to do so. The cop arrests you for the speeding offense (plus, if he wants he can throw something vague on there like 'obstruction' that will get thrown out by a judge), and then searches your card "search incident to arrest." Anything he finds, whether it be your laptop or anything else can be used against you. If you dont have anything bad in your car, well the judge will drop the obstruction charge and most likely the speeding at your first hearing. You can't complain, because nothing was done that was illegal.
No warrant. No 'probable cause' to deal with. Just police discretion. It happens all the time. Maybe its time to call you.
Intention of searches incident to arrest (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Intention of searches incident to arrest (Score:5, Informative)
Not (exactly) random searches (Score:3, Insightful)
It might be worth pointing out that, while the iPhone may be searched, it's not just a random 'I think I'll look through that guy's pockets' type search (not ostensibly anyway), but only an incident to arrest (if I remember the term correctly, though I'm from the UK not the US...). So, how I understand it, if a person is arrested for anything from solicitation, drug dealing or having a faulty brake-light, items in their possession may be searched by the police.
I guess the easiest way, in principle, would be to avoid arrest in the first place. Of course as legislation increases that, in itself, becomes more problematic. Whether or not I agree with the rights of the police to randomly search property following an arrest, particularly for evidence unrelated to the original arrest (I don't) is moot; but I thought it'd be worth pointing out.
It's also been discussed on Techdirt [techdirt.com] recently.
Aaargh! (Score:2)
The iPhone on my hip most certain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Government is like a puppy. You swat its nose when it pees on t
Not the Harvard prof who defended O.J. (Score:4, Informative)
That's Alan M. Dershowitz.
The author of the paper is one Adam M. Gershowitz. Not Alan as stated in the summary.
(Nor is it Adam Horovitz the Beastie Boy.)
iPhone meets the Fourth Ammendment (Score:5, Funny)
4th Ammendment: [walking other way] Hello there, citizen!
iPhone: Oh hi! Who are you? Haven't seen you around here much.
4th: I'm the 4th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution! I guarantee your right to be free from searches without a court-issued warrant.
iPhone: Ah, that's neat. I don't pay much attention to that politics stuff...
4th: Yeah, I know it's tough, that's why I'm out on the streets, trying to remind people of their civil liber-
[Suddenly NSA and DoJ leap out from an alley and attack 4th]
NSA: Rar!
DoJ: C'mere, bitch!
4th: Aaaaaaah!
iPhone: Dude! What the fuck?!
4th: Oh god, oh god! They're raping me! They're raping me right here on the street!
iPhone: Oh shit! Dude do you need help? [stepping forward] Cut it out you assholes!
NSA: [pulls out a switchblade]
DoJ: Back off, fucker, if you don't want to be next!
4th: Please help me! Please- Ah not there!
iPhone: Whoa dudes... Chill, seriously...
4th: [incoherent screaming]
iPhone: [backing away] Ah, yeah... I gotta go... check out the sale at Whole Foods or something... [starts running]
NSA: [shouting at iPhone] You didn't see shit!
4th: [moaning and sobbing]
[fin]
without probable cause (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't probably cause or a warrant required before you are arrested in the first place?
Security in Our Papers and Effects (Score:5, Interesting)
That point (an unproveable assertion, BTW) is totally irrelevant. The technology doesn't change our rights. We have the right to be secure in our papers and personal effects. That is obviously perfectly equivalent to records stored in the iPod. It might take a judge distracted by some arguing lawyers a few hours to decide that records stored elsewhere but accessed directly by the iPod are equivalent to the same old papers and effects, but it's an obvious conclusion.
The only relevant question is whether a cop stopping you for speeding or running a red light has probable cause to search your papers and personal effects for anything else. Which they obviously don't, especially since they've already got all the evidence of the moving violation crime they're accusing you of, and your preexisting papers could contain evidence of that only if they are accusing you of premeditated moving violations, which I think isn't even a legal charge.
The people who formulated and signed the Constitution were smart. So smart they didn't have to be able to conceive an iPhone. All they had to conceive was identifying our rights, and directing our government to protect them. And, along the couple centuries since then, we've updated their list of identified rights and required protections at least 17 more times. But none of those updates are because some gizmo appeared, even when some - like telegraphs, cars, airplanes, computers - transformed our society. Because we the people are still the same, with the same rights.
The rest of this crap is just an excuse for lawyers to make money and power brokers to steal more power from the people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, yeah, and think about it. Let's even assume that the founder would be incapable of "conceiving" of such a device. After all, it is pretty freaking amazing compared to 1700s technology. So let's just say you could raise one from the dead and show him an iPhone and show him how it lets you communicate with others, and lets you store personal documents and contact information, and he'd say "Incr
Unlike others, I RTFA'ed (Score:4, Insightful)
My question though is: what if your phone is locked? The only reference in the pdf is about a state case that ruled that locked glove boxes can not be part of this type of search. On the other hand, federal law seems to force people to open up locked items as well.....
This entire discussion could be rendered moot by the simple act of locking your device. I'm hoping that locked devices will not become part of these types of searches, but I'm not convinced.... Especially with the entire problem "there be terrorists!", we could see laws similar to Great Britain's where you are forced to hand over passwords.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible to create a security system in which the user has neither key (digital, biometric, mechanical, whatever) nor a password which would still allow the user to access the device but exclude all others? I guess that sounds like a stupid question, but it seems perfect security would require a method that does not use a key of any sort because keys can be taken, and uses a password nobody knows (not even
Next time I go to the US... (Score:4, Informative)
probably I just take a hmmm. Calculator? Analogue watch?
I am sorry, but I know people who got their PDA searched, and interrogated at the border. I know people who were asked to log-in and show their contact list on their laptop computer.
I am sorry, but I do not feel like entering the US anymore with any electronic device, because I know they have the right to search, confiscate, burn and destroy anything I carry without a warrant, without asking.
I am a legit geek, and I want my laptop and phone with me on a 1. holiday, 2. business trip to anywhere. Coming from there, even being 100 percent legit I just do not want to enter the US, because I do not want to explain my contacts in my phone book, and do not want to lose my laptop, tablet, or whatever else.
What's next? My GPS? And if I have a waypoint in the middle east or south america I am a terrosirs, bomb maker, or communist suspect?
I was thinking a dive trip to Miami, but if they anal-probe my pda I better just choose something else....
I think I just let my visa expire, and maybe renew it when the US returns to its common sense. You think I am rebelling alone? Most people I know would pahy a couple extra hundred $ to go an other route to make sure they do not lose a laptop or PDA while entering the US. And they are not criminals, just IT people. Hell, the US is killing itself slowly but surely.
iPhone? (Score:5, Insightful)
the intent is obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
have you morons actually read the 4th amendment? (Score:3, Informative)
I think the Iphone and other such devices fall under both paper (meaning data) and effects (meaning the physical device).
I think it's pretty clear! Papers and effects are covered.
repeat after me... (Score:3, Interesting)
"The protection guaranteed by the [Fourth and Fifth] Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as 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 Fourth Amendment. . .
Re: (Score:2)