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

Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 161 posts

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#41

Post by ihsw »

endersshadow wrote: post #33
gr3yh47 wrote: post #3

The loss of Aereo sucks, but this is a much heavier positive ruling. I wonder if this extends to the NSA's warrantless collection and to what extent.

This portion of the ruling would be interesting to see used: "We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime...Privacy comes at a cost." Roberts looked squarely into the "police efficiency" argument and shot it dead. This was a remarkably scathing opinion of law enforcement's methods w/r/t cell phones. I wonder if we'll see this used as part of the broader…

Not really. Simply put, LE agencies have always been happy to directly and unambiguously state that combating crime trumps privacy, and now they will do so without hesitation.

It was only a matter of time until the issue of privacy was addressed, and now that it has come to pass then the issue will cause polarization in politics. Whether this is good or bad is up to you.

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#42

Post by eugenez »

gr3yh47 wrote: post #3

The loss of Aereo sucks, but this is a much heavier positive ruling. I wonder if this extends to the NSA's warrantless collection and to what extent.

The ruling is not so much about whether they can search a phone without a warrant, but whether the resulting evidence is admissible in court for criminal cases. This will not impact NSA's collection since they have not been using it in court.

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#43

Post by moskie »

dan_bk wrote: post #37
acangiano wrote: post #6

This passage is just beautiful: "Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life,” Boyd, supra, at 630. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to t…

Why would the same not apply to the Internet cables the NSA directly taps all over the World?

Present such a case to the Supreme Court and let's find out. :-)

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#44

Post by njharman »

dan_bk wrote: post #37
acangiano wrote: post #6

This passage is just beautiful: "Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life,” Boyd, supra, at 630. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to t…

Why would the same not apply to the Internet cables the NSA directly taps all over the World?

Two reasons

1) Most people "all over world" are not US citizens and therefor not covered by bill of rights "that our founding fathers fought for" (according to US Government). NSA does (claim) to attempt to identify communications of US citizens it intercepts "overseas" and doesn't look at them without cause.

2) NSA breaks the law. Routinely it would appear.

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#45

Post by hamiltonkibbe »

joshlegs wrote: post #34
bilbo0s wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be perfectly frank... They don't even need that much at the rate most warrants are sworn out.

e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday. in any case, it's good to see this decision. perhaps it's the beginning of the legal system recognizing that electronic data is private information and should be protected.

I believe this referring to a discussion on an article about the use of Stingray-type devices (If someone can provide the link that would be great), particularly how their use was concealed from courts when obtaining a search warrant. Instead of telling the court that the information was obtained by use of a Stingray, they told the court the information came from a "confidential source"

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#47

Post by jonstewart »

dan_bk wrote: post #37
acangiano wrote: post #6

This passage is just beautiful: "Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans “the privacies of life,” Boyd, supra, at 630. The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Our answer to t…

Why would the same not apply to the Internet cables the NSA directly taps all over the World?

Simple: the NSA isn't a law enforcement agency. It's not presenting evidence in court.

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#48

Post by njharman »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #36
joshlegs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday. in any case, it's good to see this decision. perhaps it's the beginning of the legal system recognizing that electronic data is private information and should be protected.

Would you link to the source you're referring to?

It's confidential, releasing it would impact [pick one] a) an ongoing investigation b) the safety of undercover agent c) national security. But, trust us, source had good reliable info.

[edit: to the totally confused. My comment is political satire. And it purposefully misidentified which "source" you were referring to for purposes of bitching about USA law enforcement.]

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#49

Post by [deleted] »

miked wrote: post #21
rayiner wrote: post #11

Wow. It was 9-0 (Alito concurring). It's also not a narrowly-written opinion: > Even less sophisticated phones like Wurie’s, which have already faded in popularity since Wurie was arrested in 2007, have been around for less than 15 years. Both phones are based on technology nearly inconceivable just a few decades ago, when Chimel and Robinson were decided. Slip. Op. at 9. It's not every day that a conservative Chief…

> Alito concurring...That's very interesting language coming from conservative Chief Justice Roberts. Your implication seems to be that conservatives are the ones pushing weak privacy laws. I'll grant that many conservatives have been weak on privacy protection, which is one of the reasons that I'm a libertarian. But the primary parties arguing here for nearly unlimited cell phone search were "The Obama administratio…

[deleted]

Re: Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

#50

Post by wooter »

njharman wrote: post #44
dan_bk wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the same not apply to the Internet cables the NSA directly taps all over the World?

Two reasons 1) Most people "all over world" are not US citizens and therefor not covered by bill of rights "that our founding fathers fought for" (according to US Government). NSA does (claim) to attempt to identify communications of US citizens it intercepts "overseas" and doesn't look at them without cause. 2) NSA breaks the law. Routinely it would appear.

#1 is quite simply not true. Almost all US citizens I've spoken to feel strongly that we should respect others rights as we want ours to be respected.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

Just because its a reason they give, doesn't make it valid - but I guess thats what your #2 was addressing =)

Post reply on HN