Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 113 posts

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#11

Post by tptacek »

codeka wrote: post #7

It's an interesting question. I think the specific circumstances described in the article, where the police looked in the suspect's phone to find his home address is arguably not a bad search. But as they point out in the article, how far can you take it? Can you look up a person's recent contacts? His browser history? His "downloads" folder? His emails? It seems like a very small step from looking up the last few pe…

It is interesting! If you get arrested driving your car, the police can't then go to your house and copy all your private papers; they need to get a warrant to do that. But in 2013, you're as likely to be carrying around all your private papers as you are to keep them in your house. So it can't reasonably be the case that an arrest gives the police access to your accounts online!

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#12

Post by tptacek »

fixxer wrote: post #4

I get the argument that data I store on the Cloud is open to interpretation given the 3rd party (if I give Google the right to look at my data, then it is unreasonable for me to expect privacy on par with a physical drive in my possession), but data stored on my cell (a physical piece of equipment in my possession)? WTF?

I carry around a Tom Bihn bag. I do not generally let people look inside of it. When stores ask, I leave. However, if I'm arrested, the police will be allowed to search that bag, despite it being a physical pice of equipment in my possession. That's because the police do get to search you, rather thoroughly, if you're arrested.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#13

Post by NoPiece »

fixxer wrote: post #4

I get the argument that data I store on the Cloud is open to interpretation given the 3rd party (if I give Google the right to look at my data, then it is unreasonable for me to expect privacy on par with a physical drive in my possession), but data stored on my cell (a physical piece of equipment in my possession)? WTF?

Isn't the question what rights to privacy do you have after you've been arrested? I assume a cop could look through your wallet and pockets, so I can see why there is an argument they can look through your phone.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#14

Post by AlexandrB »

grandalf wrote: post #3

Let's all remember this kind of thing the next time we are inspired by a candidate's promises or rhetoric.

Okay. Who should Americans vote for then? Here's what the Conservative party had to say during the 2008 election cycle:

"Although our country has thwarted new terrorist attacks since 2001, those threats do persist. That is why our reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was so vital, and why the Democrats' opposition to it was so wrong."

Hmm, sounds like they were promising more of the same.

If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#15

Post by tptacek »

gms wrote: post #8

It is interesting to consider what the implications of this would be. Does this mean the police would be able to open the Facebook app on my iPhone, and browse my profile as well as all my friends'? Including all wall posts, messages, photos, etc? Technically, none of this is stored on the phone itself.

Maybe that's like the car/house analogy: the stuff on your actual phone is like what's in plain view in the passenger compartment of your car, but the stuff in your Facebook account is like what's back at your house.

But then, that only buys us a couple more years of reasonable delineation; eventually technology will get us to a place where all the data we want to protect is always resident with us.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#16

Post by unknownian »

AlexandrB wrote: post #14
grandalf wrote: post #3

Let's all remember this kind of thing the next time we are inspired by a candidate's promises or rhetoric.

Okay. Who should Americans vote for then? Here's what the Conservative party had to say during the 2008 election cycle: "Although our country has thwarted new terrorist attacks since 2001, those threats do persist. That is why our reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was so vital, and why the Democrats' opposition to it was so wrong." Hmm, sounds like they were promising more of the same. If your sugge…

>is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?

Do you know about the 5% funding rule in the US? Why not vote for a third party?

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#17

Post by jcampbell1 »

> In 2007, the police arrested a Massachusetts man who appeared to be selling vodka from his car. The cops seized his cellphone and noticed that it was receiving calls from “My House.” They opened the phone to determine the number for “My House.” That led them to the man’s home, where the police found vodka, cash and guns.

50 years from now, this article is going to seem like a bad joke.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#18

Post by aptwebapps »

Perhaps a compromise like being about to search your address book or other basic phone features but not files or programs which happen to be on the device? It seems that the latter, at least, should be included under 'papers and effects'.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#19

Post by leknarf »

The original arguments for "search incident to arrest" are for the arresting officers' safety (it's quite reasonable to check if a suspect has a weapon) and to prevent the destruction of evidence.

I was surprised to read in the article that previous cases have "given the police broad discretion to search possessions on the person of an arrested suspect, including notebooks, calendars and pagers." Those decisions represented a significant loss of due process.

I dislike the administration stance, but they have a fair point. A cell phone isn't substantially different than a paper notebook. Trying to draw an arbitrary distinction between physical and digital media is missing the point. We shouldn't be arguing for stronger protections of digital data. We should be arguing for stronger protections of all data, regardless of how or where it's stored.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#20

Post by fixxer »

tptacek wrote: post #12
fixxer wrote: post #4

I get the argument that data I store on the Cloud is open to interpretation given the 3rd party (if I give Google the right to look at my data, then it is unreasonable for me to expect privacy on par with a physical drive in my possession), but data stored on my cell (a physical piece of equipment in my possession)? WTF?

I carry around a Tom Bihn bag. I do not generally let people look inside of it. When stores ask, I leave. However, if I'm arrested, the police will be allowed to search that bag, despite it being a physical pice of equipment in my possession. That's because the police do get to search you, rather thoroughly, if you're arrested.

But you still have some expectation of privacy.

Search is supposed to be limited to the area within their immediate control for purpose of seizing any weapons or "obvious evidence related to or separate from the crime incident to the arrest".

I guess it comes down to how we define obvious. Is the file system on my phone obvious?

EDIT: Tom Bihn? You need to get a CountyComm EOD Utility Bag. Nothing says "hello" to TSA like a bag with pockets designed for M4 clips.

Post reply on HN