Article by Timothy B. Lee, as in Sir Tim Berners-Lee father of the WWW??? :P
Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
71–80 of 113 posts
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#72Your 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 surveil…
The fifth amendment was only ever intended to be dealing with testimony - you couldn't be called as a witness against yourself (the history of why it exists makes this clear). That is, you literally can not be asked to testify against yourself, in a custodial interrogation, court, or other setting where it could be used as evidence against you in a criminal trial. It was never intended to prevent evidence you were st…
At least that means that I would not need to help them searching my phone. Is that correct?
My phone needs a pass code to allow any interaction and I could conceivably encrypt data on it. What if I get arrested, but on grounds of the 4th amendment won't reveal the pass code?
Oops. Meant to reply to cgshaw, the child comment.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you could read it out of people's brains, harmlessly, painlessly, etc, i think that would be fine. I must state that this sentiment sickens me slightly. I sincerely hope that this interpretation is absolutely unthinkable by the time technology reaches that point. I don't believe that any world in which one's thoughts and memories are not private can ever be free.
Sorry, I should have been clear: I meant fine legally, in the context of the fifth amendment. It is not a statement of what I believe the social view/norm/etc should be, or whether it should be allowed. Only an objective assessment of whether it would fall within the context of what was currently protected and the intent of protecting that. Personally, I would find it abhorrent, but that is not particularly relevant…
I read something recently --- can't remember what --- that suggested that the expensive ceremony around obtaining phone wiretaps at the state level were in part motivated by the concern that wiretaps came close to reading the thoughts of the accused.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#74Let'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…
Vote Green. http://stallman.org/
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#75This that same Obama that was on TV two weeks ago saying 'We don't have a domestic spying program' and that same Obama that a few days later was 'promising greater oversight and transparency and insisting he had no interest in snooping on ordinary citizens.' ?! This feels like an Orwellian nightmare that I just woke up in.
If he spies on everyone, foreign or domestic, is it a "domestic spying program?"
Yes, word games they play to mislead.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I think many of the founders would have agreed with you." Based on what? The fifth amendment exists mainly to prevent torturing people for extracting information, a practice that was not uncommon in parts of the 16th and 17th centuries. Extending this to "personal assistants" doesn't seem like anything the founders would have supported, so i'd love to see evidence. Again, the fourth amendment, i agree, but the fifth…
My diary is just myself in the past. Must I be compelled to testify against my future self?
Yes.
Your diary is not testimony.
Your blood is not testimony.
Your handwriting is not testimony.
Testimony is testimony.
As mentioned elsewhere, you miss the point of the fifth amendment. It was not because self-testimony was sacred. It is because people were being tortured to get it.
Given that a diary is already written, no current harm will come to you from its use.
Now, if your question is whether this should be protected that's a question about society and whether we need to pass a new amendment. But it's not what the fifth was there for.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I should have been clear: I meant fine legally, in the context of the fifth amendment. It is not a statement of what I believe the social view/norm/etc should be, or whether it should be allowed. Only an objective assessment of whether it would fall within the context of what was currently protected and the intent of protecting that. Personally, I would find it abhorrent, but that is not particularly relevant…
I read something recently --- can't remember what --- that suggested that the expensive ceremony around obtaining phone wiretaps at the state level were in part motivated by the concern that wiretaps came close to reading the thoughts of the accused.
I imagine this is more along the lines of 4th amendment or thoughtcrime.
I actually believe we are likely to need another amendment to protect us in the future, because I don't think the fifth does or would do a good job of this.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#78Your 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 surveil…
The problem is that the Constitution we have simply doesn't offer the protections we need. When it was written, nobody would have thought to even debate protecting against keeping a copy of every single correspondence a person made, or a log of everything a person read, even in their own homes.
It would be like today considering if we should have a protection against the government taking our DNA and making half-dinosaur hybrid clones of us to use as soldiers. It is not technically impossible, but it's very difficult to see how it would ever be practical.
Unfortunately, the amendment process we have is proving to be rather inadequate. It seems likely that if we didn't already have the Fifth Amendment, we'd never be able to get it considered as a serious issue, much less ratified. Some people would be complaining about the government torturing its own citizens all the time, and the President would be telling us that torture is "a powerful tool, and with great power comes great responsibility", and that we must limit that power so it wouldn't be abused. And at the same time, he'd be going to SCOTUS to try and get permission to do it even more (after all, how can you call it "cruel and unusual" when it's so commonplace?).
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#79Obama's gone totally rogue.
Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches
#80I don't see the problem. If I'm selling drugs out of my car and the police have the right to search it, then they have the right to search the paper notebook on the seat next to me. If there's a phone number in there then they can do what they want with it under the law: which could include working out where I live from it.
To search my home they need a warrant. Which means they need probably cause.
How is a cell phone any different? The law shouldn't be about storage capacity! If it is, then you're saying that they can search the 48 page notebook on the passenger seat, but the 128 page is off limits. That's ludicrous.
Now under the 5th, he should have the right not to unlock it for the police. But they certainly have the right to seize it.
The headline seems to be sensationalist and trying to surf the Snowden saga for readers. It's not related.
Edit: I'm ignoring the sanity of prohibition laws, but just comparing this story to common sense.