Get ready to be arrested for something _every time_ police notice you filming police activity.
Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
31–40 of 113 posts
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#32Let's be clear about the future: in the very near future, every person will carry access to every piece of digital information they have ever interacted with, on their person, at all times.
This is already pretty much true today; it will certainly be absolutely true tomorrow.
Allowing warrantless searches of this pile of data eliminates any idea of needing search warrants at all.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#33> 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.
The article currently says "drugs, cash, and guns". Was that changed, or are you making a joke?
He is implying the drug war will have ended, while also making a reference to prohibition.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
>>Why not vote for a third party? Because it does nothing.
Neither it seems, does voting for one of the two main parties.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#35Your cellphones and personal computers shouldn't be protected by the Fourth ammendment; They should be protected by the Fifth. More and more, cellphones, PCs, and even other people's servers are becoming invaluable, impossible-to-live-without brain extensions. That they should be allowed to be used against you in court is insane. The communications that they send and receive should be subject to well-overseen surveillance, but the devices themselves are as much you as you are.
I imagine a not too far off future where your glasses tell you your schedule, where haptic and audio feedback are constantly feeding you a stream of your important information; Where even moreso than today, your personal data network is you. There's a chapter in Accellerando ^1 where Manfred's glasses are stolen, and the thug who steals them becomes Manfred by simple virtue of putting them on and being overwhelmed by the signals. He's not a very good Manfred, but he quickly is more Manfred than the person he was. It's only a matter of time before "I" am my newsfeeds, e-mails, calendar reminders, etc.
[1] http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/fiction/accelera...
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
"If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?" How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win,…
> How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win, then it's just a coordination problem.
I think that's a bit idealistic. A lot of people voted Ralph Nader in 2000, and while it's up for debate whether this cost Gore the election, I think many voters are now turned off the idea.
In a close con/dem race, I think many would rather have some of their positions represented by the resulting POTUS than shoot for the moon and risk "splitting the vote". One of the major parties would have to do some truly outrageous shit and alienate their base before this dynamic changes.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#37Careful about the "warrantless" here. It's true, it's a warrantless search, and don't think I'm saying that's an illegitimate concern. However: The police already have broad authority to search you and your immediate person incident to an arrest. If this is news to you, you really want to read up on it. This is one of the big things that makes a formal arrest different from mere detention, and one of the reasons the…
Attorney here. The search incident to lawful arrest doctrine is rooted in officer safety. Specifically, the Court says officers should have the ability to look for guns and contraband when someone is pulled over and it's likely they are armed or their immediate person or vicinity poses a threat and/or has evidence of a crime. The courts have decided that any drug suspicion means they are likely to have a weapon, whic…
You note that a "drug dealer" faces a warrantless search of his electronic devices to determine others involved in the "drug trade" but how is the determination that a suspect is a "drug dealer" made?
Is this another discretionary power afforded to LEO?
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#38Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
>>Why not vote for a third party? Because it does nothing.
It does as much as voting for the major party.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#40Let's all remember this kind of thing the next time we are inspired by a candidate's promises or rhetoric.
Anyone who gets "inspired" by politicians is dangerous. A politician should cause mild disgust, at best.