Live data from Hacker News

Supreme court: Warrantless cell phone searches illegal [pdf]

supremecourt.gov

71–80 of 161 posts

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

#71
post #66
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's generally not useful to quote flowery language like this, because it's not legally operative. It might justify a particular application of the law, but it isn't the law. It is what lawyers call "dicta." NSA wiretaps differ in two key ways: 1) At least in theory, they are intended to capture foreign communications. People not on U.S. soil who are not U.S. citizens enjoy no protections under our Constitution. 2) T…

> But signals transmitted out into the world does not fit neatly into any of those four categories. Therein lies IMO one of the big issues with US justice: the law is interpreted literally. But the aim of the original law (what it attempted to protect or achieve, i.e. the citizens' privacy) is not really deemed relevant.

[deleted]

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

#72
post #65
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#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 =)

No, the previous statement accurately captured the U.S. government's position: "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)" Note I'm not making a normative statement here; rather I'm agreeing with the previous statement that this is FedGov's claim about the extent to which the BoR applies to non-US cit…

It's a fairly common interpretation in many areas of law.

E.g. while it hasn't reached the Supremes, a bunch of states that have shall issue concealed carry regimes have been forced by the courts to extend these to permanent resident aliens (AKA Green Card holders), who in general are pretty much treated as citizens except they can't vote and of course can be deported.

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

#74
This is a solid decision that will curb abusive searches and help other Fourth Amendment litigation, including ongoing cases involving warrantless cell phone tracking. (That's because many of the concepts about the importance of mobile devices are true in the tracking context as well.)

But it also shows how long it takes for the legal system to fix these problems. I wrote these articles over 7 years ago about how cops in San Francisco and elsewhere were searching phones a decade ago, and the practice has likely been going on for even longer: http://news.cnet.com/Police-Blotter-Cops-need-warrant-to-sea... http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Cops-OK-to-copy-cell-pho...

This may be a lesson for HN readers trying to solve privacy problems.

Option #1, enacting a new law, tends to be an exercise in futility: California rejected a fix to cell phone searches in 2011, and Congress did nothing on cell phone searches (nor has it enacted a law to fix warrantless email searches or rein in the NSA post-Snowden).

Option #2, relying on the courts, may work, but it may not. It took 10 years to fix cell phone searches, and only after millions of dollars worth of concerted advocacy by EFF, ACLU, etc. And it might have gone the other way: remember the courts have blessed the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections because of the War On Some Politically Unpopular Drugs.

Option #3, creating technology, works as soon as you can deploy it, and is subject to the laws of mathematics rather than whether a SCOTUS justice is a crankypants today when it comes to privacy. Of course the NSA may try to subvert your encryption/anonymizer/etc., but its attempts may fail, and, besides, intelligence agencies already subverted Congress long ago. :)

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

#75
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was, um, joking.

Could you point out the joke? I can't locate anything that could be interpreted as one. It would be especially odd for it to be a joke since you've been around HN long enough to know better.

It was an egregious lapse in judgment. I am shutting down my computer now, and will schedule an appointment with my therapist later today.

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

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.]

Now I'm totally confused. e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday. That implies some confidential source was featured on HN yesterday. Linking to that post should do none of those things.

He's referring to the practice of Florida law enforcement claiming that the basis for a warrant came from "a confidential source" (which, in the context of warrants, appears to mean "an actual person"), when in reality they were using information captured via IMSI capturers ("stingrays") -- devices which MITM cell phone connections to surveil users of the cell network.

In short, he was saying that we can reliably expect many warrants to have been obtained by law enforcement lying to judges. Based on the information (lies) presented to the judges, they're going to approve the warrant, because they operate on the premise that law enforcement wouldn't lie to them.

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

#77
I hope people are making it to Alito's partial concurring opinion at the bottom. He goes into more detail about the history of searches and draws a different conclusion about their rightful purpose than the "trilogy" referenced by the majority opinion. He also points out that the ruling actually puts cell phone data in a favored position compared to physical effects, and concludes that while a broad and easy to apply rule is the right decision for the court, a more nuanced set of rules enacted by legislators may be warranted.

Both opinions are great and illuminating reads!

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

#79
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 =)

There is a differences(sometimes vast) between what is "true" and what is "right". As much as it pains me, the US Government does not consult me on matters of ethics. What it does do is still true. Regardless of whether you, I, or anyone else believe it to be wrong.

btw "(according to US Government)" should have made it clear that it was a reported fact and not a value judgement by the author, me.

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

#80
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I'm totally confused. e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday. That implies some confidential source was featured on HN yesterday. Linking to that post should do none of those things.

He's referring to the practice of Florida law enforcement claiming that the basis for a warrant came from "a confidential source" (which, in the context of warrants, appears to mean "an actual person"), when in reality they were using information captured via IMSI capturers ("stingrays") -- devices which MITM cell phone connections to surveil users of the cell network. In short, he was saying that we can reliably exp…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN