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

91–100 of 113 posts

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

#91

Post by nickles »

lessnonymous wrote: post #80

I 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 pho…

A cellphone serves as a digital container into one's life. As it is a connected device, the cellphone has access to potentially limitless information about a person since the data is not necessarily stored on the phone itself but rather on servers elsewhere. Finally, one typically does not have complete control over the data that resides on their phone (installing the Facebook application, for example, allows others to stream their content directly to your device).

You're correct that this is unrelated to the NSA's surveillance programs. However, it does represent a threat to US citizens' constitutional protections.

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

#92

Post by Amadou »

DannyBee wrote: post #90
nitrogen wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is one of the sources of abrasion between lawyers and hackers on HN -- the distinction between "legal" and "ethical" is not always made clear. Sometimes you'll see a hacker post that things must be one way, while a lawyer replies that, no, in fact, they are completely the opposite (the hacker invariably reads "you imbecile" after this, even though it's not actually typed ;-) ). In reality, the hacker may…

"In reality, the hacker may have a perfect understanding of the current law" Maybe? I find engineers, like a lot of intelligent people, read a lot and think this means they understand things. If they spend their time starting by reading and learning fundamentals, i'd agree with you. Instead, a lot of the time, IMHO, they read and understand particular cases in particular jurisdictions, and then take that as a truth t…

This often grates on most engineers, who want bright lines and definite answers.

FWIW, the thing that bugs me the most is that sometimes the bright lines are more important than the soft stuff like intent and sometimes they are not and there is little rhyme or reason for why. I'm not just talking things like strict liability versus mens rea either, its just that I don't have a good example off the top of my head. Maybe AT&T vs Weev?

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

#93

Post by cupcake-unicorn »

I now keep a Nandroid backup of a blank "fake" OS around on my phone, for emergencies...why? I was detained crossing the Canadian border for an hour as the border patrol read through my personal emails on my phone and who knows what else. If I hadn't supplied the password willingly to them, I'm sure they would have refused me entry, so I couldn't do much about it. But having an OS to boot into on any device that's pretty cleared out and submitting that willingly works much better over denying the password. Of course, if you have any really sensitive stuff, this method wouldn't work super well, as the devices could be searched more thoroughly, but to stop harassment when crossing borders, at police stops, etc. I think it's a good idea.

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

#94

Post by ketralnis »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #35

Your 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…

> They should be protected by the Fifth

A recording of something that you said is admissible. Why wouldn't a digital recording of something you said be? Because you own it and the court doesn't and shouldn't be allowed to search it without probably cause in the first place.

> The communications that they send and receive should be subject to well-overseen surveillance

Surveillance, all-seeing all-knowing citizen-watching and suspicion-free spying is not okay. Targeted, with-warrant wiretaps are (maybe) a different story. Maybe I define this different than most (please chime in with your own) but the word surveillance means to me that you're being watched from above with many other also-innocent people.

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

#95

Post by venomsnake »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #17

> 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.

50 years from now cash may as well be outlawed because of that pesky anonymity thing.

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

#96

Post by yardie »

DannyBee wrote: post #90
nitrogen wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is one of the sources of abrasion between lawyers and hackers on HN -- the distinction between "legal" and "ethical" is not always made clear. Sometimes you'll see a hacker post that things must be one way, while a lawyer replies that, no, in fact, they are completely the opposite (the hacker invariably reads "you imbecile" after this, even though it's not actually typed ;-) ). In reality, the hacker may…

"In reality, the hacker may have a perfect understanding of the current law" Maybe? I find engineers, like a lot of intelligent people, read a lot and think this means they understand things. If they spend their time starting by reading and learning fundamentals, i'd agree with you. Instead, a lot of the time, IMHO, they read and understand particular cases in particular jurisdictions, and then take that as a truth t…

Most engineers are human :-) and just use logic as a means to support their argument. They just do it better than the typical TV pundit.

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

#97

Post by ohWhatever »

jellicle wrote: post #32

Let'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.

Let's be clear about your hyperbole: in the very near future, everyone will read some news article about the shocking transgressions enabled by the retarded idea of just waltzing around with your entire life story on your person at all times, and they'll wisely avoid ever doing such a stupid, stupid thing.

When you use words like "every", "any", "always" and "all", it can severely weaken your argument.

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

#98

Post by TsiCClawOfLight »

DannyBee wrote: post #77
tptacek wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But will that amendment be passed in a country like this... ?

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

#99

Post by Shivetya »

mistercow wrote: post #78
GauntletWizard wrote: post #35

Your 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-dino…

It does provide us the protections we need, the government just violates those protections until a court slaps them down. It becomes a battle of lawyers, between those who twist the words to bypass every protection and those who sit there and pull apart every twist to reveal the deficiency of the argument.

The 4th is more than enough to protect the taking of our cellphones. Like any property of ours, our houses for one, it should require a warrant to search

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

#100

Post by edanm »

cgshaw wrote: post #49
DannyBee wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Attorney here. DannyBee is absolutely correct. To my knowledge, data on a computer would be handled like an offender's diary, and that is certainly admissible in court, assuming authentication that the diary was actually written by the offender. Data is interesting because authentication can arguable be harder to prove. (handwriting is pretty easy to attribute) The truth is, the founding fathers likely could not have…

Could you explain the history of the 5th ammendmment in this context? I understand from some light Wikipedia reading that it was originally around mostly to prevent tortured confessions. Why is it still relevant at all?
Post reply on HN