Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Crime Government Handhelds Privacy Your Rights Online

California Governor Vetoes Ban On Warrantless Phone Searches 462

Posted by Soulskill
from the take-that-citizens dept.
kodiaktau writes "In probably the most important decision Gov. Brown of California will make this year, he has vetoed the bill that would require officers to get a search warrant before searching cellular phones of arrested citizens. This further enables the police to carry out warrantless searches of private property extending into contacts, email, photos, banking activity, GPS, and other functions that are controlled by modern phones. 'He cites a recent California Supreme Court decision upholding the warrantless searches of people incident to an arrest. In his brief message (PDF), he also doesn’t say whether it’s a good idea or not. Instead, he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last week.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Governor Vetoes Ban On Warrantless Phone Searches

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I'd like a remote backup and 1-button wipe app...

    • by trout007 (975317)

      I'd like to backup and get remotely wiped.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Do you really need your whole life on your phone? Isn't a contact list and a calendar/alarm (as well as the ability to talk/text) more than enough?

      Fun fact: you could use a dumbphone and then do all your email/games/etc from an Ipod touch or some such. Just chuck your touch under your car seat when you see the cop drive up. Then let 'em search your phone...there's nothing there.

      • by m50d (797211) on Tuesday October 11, 2011 @08:56AM (#37677968) Homepage Journal

        Do you really need your whole life on your phone? Isn't a contact list and a calendar/alarm (as well as the ability to talk/text) more than enough?

        No, I don't need to. But I want to, and it's supposed to be a free country.

  • by Dyinobal (1427207) on Monday October 10, 2011 @08:21PM (#37673172)
    So how many Californians will vote for him again? How many will also buy the official line about why they did it, which likely includes 'public safety or protecting the children'
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How many Californians are actually going to remember this when its time to vote?

      About 45 activists who know better. And if they do know better they know damn well that if they vote for the other party, that candidate will be much, much worse.

      This isn't something solved by voting. Not anymore.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by The_K4 (627653)
      None. He's term-limited. He CAN'T run for Governor again.
    • This is Jerry Brown we're talking about. California voters had to be seriously history-impaired to vote for him this time. Not that his Repub opponent was any prize, but really, electing Governor Moonbeam again? What were they thinking?

    • I won't vote for him again. For some reason I thought "Governor Moonbeam" was a different fella than this "Governor E-Cavity Search".
    • by PCM2 (4486) on Monday October 10, 2011 @09:47PM (#37673988) Homepage

      See, the thing is, California in its present state is more or less ungovernable. I and others who voted for Jerry Brown did so, at least to some extent, because as a former governor he was uniquely situated to be honest about this, and was prepared to work within the limitations of his office. Becoming governor was hardly going to be a feather in his cap when he'd already served two terms. He's also campaigned both for the Senate and the Presidency in the past; both campaigns failed. His last executive position was as Mayor of Oakland, where opinion about him was pretty mixed. So in a way, he has more to prove than any other candidate if he still harbors further political ambitions. People know him too well. I believe he's content to be what he is: a career California politician who just wants to make a difference. I, for one, certainly don't envy him the position of governor.

      Would I vote for him again? That depends on many things. Remember, last time he ran against Meg Whitman.

    • by t2t10 (1909766)

      Lots of people will vote for him: between the people who don't understand the issue, who don't care, and who will vote for someone because of his party no matter what he does, this won't affect his chances.

  • If they want to be this way, vote 'em out. Bastards.
    • Re:Vote 'em out (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ohnocitizen (1951674) on Monday October 10, 2011 @08:29PM (#37673254)
      Its becoming a race to the bottom, with all three branches of government at both the federal and state level pushing each other to invade privacy and erode rights further and further. Putting either a Democrat or Republican in office doesn't seem to be doing anything at all. What exactly does that leave? Who do we replace them with (when voting them out is even an option). Several members of the Supreme Court have indicated they sit on the bench to further corporate interests at the expense of individual rights. What recourse do we have?
    • Re:Vote 'em out (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dkleinsc (563838) on Monday October 10, 2011 @08:33PM (#37673276) Homepage

      And vote in who? That's the problem, there is no candidate or major party right now that could come close to winning a stamp of approval from folks who care about civil liberties.

      • by hedwards (940851)

        That can be an issue, we have that problem around here with some of the local elections, seems like we're constantly voting against the incumbent. And we don't seem to ever run out of bad candidates to vote for.

        From what I've read, it sounds like CA has similar problems at the state level, plenty of folks to vote for, but none of whom really ought to be elected.

      • Re:Vote 'em out (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday October 10, 2011 @09:20PM (#37673724)

        "And vote in who? That's the problem, there is no candidate or major party right now that could come close to winning a stamp of approval from folks who care about civil liberties."

        Really? Are you going to be like most of the media outlets that have ignored Ron Paul?

        In 30 years of politics, he has never broken a campaign promise; he has invariably voted exactly the way he said he would. He has consistently voted against unconstitutional laws, even when his stance was unpopular.

        He predicted exactly the current economic situation well before it happened, when all the others were exclaiming about how well the economy was doing, right up to the crash in 2008. (Herman Cain, for example, is on video proclaiming the wonderful state of the economy, one week before the crash.)

        The difference between Paul, and the other current candidates who have been saying things people have been wanting to hear, is that Paul has been consistently saying the same things for many years. The others are just saying them because they know that's what people want to hear.

        And he has been consistently leading in the polls, and also making good campaign money. He received twice as much campaign money from enlisted military personnel than all the other GOP candidates combined, and more than Obama as well. That should tell you something.

        He has also been leading the straw polls.

        So, to summarize: he has proven himself to be honest, he has been dedicated to changing government in a good way, even when that view was unpopular, and he is popular. What more do you want?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Cyberax (705495)

          Ron Paul was 'predicting' the current situation since well into 90-s. So no, it doesn't count. And during the crisis he's been constantly mis-predicting, well, everything (runaway inflation, hellllo?).

          Then he has inconsistent views, basically have religious freedom is OK, unless you're not a Christian.

          And last, but not least - his recipes to help the economy are disastrous.

          • Re:Vote 'em out (Score:4, Informative)

            by dave562 (969951) on Monday October 10, 2011 @10:09PM (#37674220) Journal

            Ron Paul was 'predicting' the current situation since well into 90-s. So no, it doesn't count.

            If in the 1990s someone told you, "Your computer won't run the most popular OS in 2011." Would they have been wrong? Ron Paul had the foresight to see that the economy was on an unsustainable course back in the 1990s, long before the dot com crash. It does not take a genius to look at the history of fiat currencies and the inevitable boom / bust cycles to say, "This is going to come off the rails eventually."

            And during the crisis he's been constantly mis-predicting, well, everything (runaway inflation, hellllo?).

            Outside of CPI, inflation has been going up significantly.

            http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=59409 [wnd.com]

            And last, but not least - his recipes to help the economy are disastrous.

            They are now. If they had been implemented earlier we might have had a chance. As it stands, the middle class in America will be all but completely wiped out in the next generation. There is not anything that Ron Paul, or anyone else can do about it. The dynamics of the world have shifted. The American standard of living will only decline from here on out.

            • Danger Will Robinson, another fruit loop who has bought into the Shadow Stats hooey.

              It's quite easy to prove that the CPI and not Shadow Stats is correct; massive studies on price information have been collected via Google Search to form Google's Price Index and similar studies by MIT to form their BillionPrice data. The fact is that the government CPI information is an accurate measure of inflation.

              http://blog.jparsons.net/2011/06/shadow-stats-debunked-part-ii.html [jparsons.net]

      • by mnewcomb (1042270)

        You sound like you care about your civil liberties yet don't know about Ron Paul? Either you don't really care or you have been sleeping under a rock.

    • Re:Vote 'em out (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jeremi (14640) on Monday October 10, 2011 @08:33PM (#37673280) Homepage

      If they want to be this way, vote 'em out. Bastards.

      All well and good in theory, but in practice it only helps if the alternative isn't even worse. And in the contemporary US, the alternative to a lousy Democrat is usually a much lousier Republican.

      (Yes, I know about third party candidates. Unfortunately, our elections are set up in such a way that the only real effect third party candidates can have is to siphon support away from the mainstream candidate they most resemble... which means that voting third party makes it less likely that the third party's policy goals will be realized. Sad, but true.)

      • +1 Insightful. I hate when my idealism doesn't match reality.
        • Keep the faith. Here in the UK, we have only had two parties who were credibly able to win a General Election and form the national government for several decades, because with our first-past-the-post electoral system none of the smaller parties had even a fighting chance.

          Until, that is, both major parties screwed up to the point that neither quite got an absolute majority in Parliament (which is in practice the benchmark for being allowed to form the government) even with our mathematically nonsensical vot

      • You know, you could always, gasp, get involved during the primaries and select a different party candidate. If you want a different slate of candidates you need to get more involved before and between elections.
        • by tepples (727027)

          You know, you could always, gasp, get involved during the primaries and select a different party candidate.

          Unless the candidate that one wants is mathematically eliminated before the primaries even get to one's state.

  • Occupy Movement. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by unity100 (970058) on Monday October 10, 2011 @08:28PM (#37673236) Homepage Journal
    Every other day we are seeing another example of how the ones who were supposed to exercise power on behalf of the people have become enemies of the people.

    Some people utter empty stuff like "vote em' out" and whatnot - but, if it has been possible, we wouldnt have been in this situation have we ? whomever you vote, result is the same. the machine has been usurped by those who serve the few. laws work differently for the rich and the poor.

    can you say with a rational mind that, things like occupy movement are unnecessary in such a world ?
    • Some people utter empty stuff like "vote em' out" and whatnot - but, if it has been possible, we wouldnt have been in this situation have we ? whomever you vote, result is the same. the machine has been usurped by those who serve the few. laws work differently for the rich and the poor.

      The flaw in your logic is that you do not consider voter complacency or apathy. The fact is that most voters are loyal to their party. Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems. If you loyally vote for *your* party then your party can ignore you because your vote is secure, and the other party can ignore you because they can do nothing to earn your vote. Those who vote based upon a theoretical party platform are a big part of the problem. People need to make politicians realize that they

    • by Culture20 (968837)

      Every other day we are seeing another example of how the ones who were supposed to exercise power on behalf of the people have become enemies of the people. Some people utter empty stuff like "vote em' out" and whatnot - but, if it has been possible, we wouldnt have been in this situation have we ? whomever you vote, result is the same. the machine has been usurped by those who serve the few. laws work differently for the rich and the poor.

      Careful with your rhetoric. The "occupy movement" should express itself as a voting awareness movement. If it isn't using the soapbox to solicit change via the ballot box (and it can't get the change it wants by the hury box), there's only one box left, and that's seditious.

    • by lexsird (1208192)

      Welcome to the fascist police state and the modern equivalent to "your papers please". Obviously our judicial system is the weak leg of our tripod government, when we crawl out from whatever rubble is left from whatever takes down this machine, we need to not repeat that mistake again.

  • by Scott Swezey (678347) on Monday October 10, 2011 @08:28PM (#37673238) Homepage

    Wow. It was my impression that the supreme court judged cases based on existing law, and the legislature wrote new law. Perhaps the legislature wrote this law because it disagreed with the recent court decision. Part of why the legislature exists is to create and/or update laws in response to changing times and public opinion.

    To Governor Brown: If the supreme court believes this law is unconstitutional, they can strike it down. Don't overstep your powers and do this for them. Unless *YOU,* on behalf of your constituents, have a specific objection: let the law pass.

    (For the record, I live in CA and voted for Jerry Brown in the last election)

    • by magarity (164372)

      To Governor Brown: If the supreme court believes this law is unconstitutional, they can strike it down. Don't overstep your powers and do this for them. Unless *YOU,* on behalf of your constituents, have a specific objection: let the law pass.

      (For the record, I live in CA and voted for Jerry Brown in the last election)

      The SCOTUS *already* struck down something similar; the governor is saving his cash strapped state millions of dollars in legal expenses which he is confident would just result in them pointing at said case they've recently already decided and asking "Did you not pay attention the first time?"

      • It was the supreme court of the state of CA, not SCOTUS, and since they didn't rule that a specific law was unconstitutional, I believe a new law would supersede their decision... unless of course they ruled that the new law violated the state constitution.

        Remember, the court makes decisions within the bounds of current law. Unless a law violates the constitution, the courts are overridden by the law. Not the other way around.

      • by SilentChasm (998689) on Monday October 10, 2011 @09:53PM (#37674044)

        The SCOTUS didn't strike down a similar bill, they just didn't disagree with the California Supreme Court in their assessment that lets police search cell phones of people they arrest. It's entirely in the legislature's rights to then say, 'oh that's not how it should be' and pass more protections against searches. I don't really see anything unconstitutional about law makers passing restrictions on what police, a part of the government, can do against citizens. If it was the other way around, for example allowing searches when there should be protections, then yes it should be struck down.

      • by Bobartig (61456)

        The SCOTUS did no such thing. In People v. Diaz, the California Supreme Court held that warrantless searches of a cellphone was consistent with the protections of the U.S. Constitution and the CA State constitution. In other words, they interpreted a Police Procedure in light of State and Federal Constitutions. There was no statute involved.

        In saying the SCOTUS 'let stand' that decision, this merely means that they chose not to grant certiorari. This is not affirming the decision, this is not striking down

    • by dougmc (70836)

      To Governor Brown: If the supreme court believes this law is unconstitutional, they can strike it down. Don't overstep your powers and do this for them. Unless *YOU,* on behalf of your constituents, have a specific objection: let the law pass.

      Well, it seems that the Governor of California swears an oath that starts out like this --

      "I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California ...

      It seems to me that if he thinks a bill is unconstitutional (no matter how much *I* might like the bill) it's his duty to veto it.

      I'm not saying that this is why he vetoed it -- I don't know why -- but I'm simply saying that vetoing it for being unconstitutional would not strike me as an overstepping of his powers if he really does think it's unconstitutional.

  • Override? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr. Shotgun (832121) on Monday October 10, 2011 @08:29PM (#37673246)

    According to TFA, the bill was approved with 70-0 in the assembly and 32-4 in the state senate. Can't they just override this asshat?

    • Re:Override? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RobinEggs (1453925) on Monday October 10, 2011 @08:35PM (#37673292)
      Yes, and he knows it will be. This is just some weird way of making a position statement, I assume.

      It takes two-thirds in each chamber to override in California, just as with the federal legislature. Brown must know his veto is useless, so ergo he's bluffing or posturing somehow.
      • Yes, I suppose you are right, the article also links to the fact that Brown took a sizable amount of donations from various police organizations for his reelection campaign. I guess that may explain why he went Don Quixote on this one. Still sucks that politicians would be so aligned against the wishes of their constituents but what can be expected in this day and age. Thanks for the info. Hopefully the legislature does not lose it's resolve when it comes back to them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ShakaUVM (157947)

          >>Yes, I suppose you are right, the article also links to the fact that Brown took a sizable amount of donations from various police organizations for his reelection campaign.

          Which also explains why California just banned open carry. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20118261-503544.html)

          I love how they can take the second amendment, which guarantees the right to "bear" arms, and then pretend that word simply doesn't exist.

          Arnie wasn't nearly as bad as Governor Moonbeam.

      • by TubeSteak (669689)

        It takes two-thirds in each chamber to override in California, just as with the federal legislature. Brown must know his veto is useless, so ergo he's bluffing or posturing somehow.

        How do you veto a law that was passed with more than 2/3rds in each body?

  • Brown had to- Otherwise how could he listen in to be sure we weren't plotting something like..oh, I don't know, maybe not giving all our money to illegal aliens so they can go to school here and take seats away from the residents like the other bill he is supposed to sign. He is really trying hard to ruin this state. Almost as hard as Obama is trying to ruin this country.
  • So does this mean if I had an SSH client on my phone, with a certificate installed to automatically log me in to a private server at my home, that police can search my home computer via my phone as well?

    I think it's fair to make the same comparison of them looking at my Facebook or Twitter account as well, because that's private data which is password-protected. The fact that my phone is automatically logged into those services does not change that fact. Much the same as if they went to my house and my do

  • As I understand it from reading Prof. Orin Kerr's blogs and law review articles, this is a developing area of Constitutional law. Searches incident arrest are not intended to be something that allows an officer to search all locked containers within arms reach of the suspect when he is arrested, as I understand it. So the question really comes down to what category a phone falls into. And not all phones may be created equal. It may be that smart phones are entitled to more protection than low-end cell phones. But as the US Supreme Court has not been clear on this yet, it's up to the state and circuit courts to try to sort this issue out.

    So in the end, the veto may or may not amount to anything.

  • Everyone complaining above agrees that an officer who arrests a hit and run offender should not be allowed to search the defendants phone to see if they were talking / texting at the time of the accident?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by redshirt (95023)

      That's right. The officer doesn't. Those records are actually best and easily obtained from the wireless carrier with a warrant. The evidence (in your example) won't change state if the investigators follow the constitution.

    • "Everyone complaining above agrees that an officer who arrests a hit and run offender should not be allowed to search the defendants phone to see if they were talking / texting at the time of the accident?"

      I'm certainly not comfortable with your average highway patrolman making such a determination.

    • Everyone complaining above agrees that an officer who arrests a hit and run offender should not be allowed to search the defendants phone to see if they were talking / texting at the time of the accident?

      Sure, search it. With a warrant.

    • by wierd_w (1375923)

      Correct.

      The slippery slope invasion of privacy required to bust that oh so naughty texter is not worth the downsides of having to prove before a state judge that what the prosecutor "found" on the phone is complete bunk that they planted there, or trying to prove to a court after the fact that an officer of the law purposefully destroyed evidence of his beating in the face of an innocent (until proven guilty) person on the street after he charged and arrested you for interfering with the police, or for wire

    • Yes! because it is not the officers job to build a case at the time of arrest. That can be done by the district attorney using the existing methods at their disposal, namely warrants and subpoenas. The officer can make note of and seize items immediately noticeable, such as an open bottle in the passenger seat or the fact that a driver had a cell phone. But items that require more detailed investigation, like the contents of a cell phone, should be accompanied by a warrant authorizing the search, which any

      • This makes sense. I stand corrected.

        • No problem dude, besides which the DA can also get the call and data transfer records from the provider, which he can match to the 100% lawfully obtained cell phone's inbound and outbound records (warrant), building a much better case than an officer's account of his search of the cell phone while at the scene when there is all sorts of emotional drama.They do things right and the evidence will speak for itself.

    • by roc97007 (608802)

      Yeah. That's pretty much it. Because the crime of which you are accused doesn't make illegal search and seizure suddenly ok.

      Besides, that's somewhat of a bad example, as (a) what's available on the phone isn't much different than what's available from the service provider, after the usual court order process (which would certainly be granted in an injury hit-and-run), and (b) it's already been shown that message time stamps aren't necessarily accurate. A woman was prosecuted not long ago based on a text

    • by Surt (22457)

      Certainly not without a warrant, are you crazy?

    • by einhverfr (238914)

      No. Require a warrant unless the search incident arrest exception is properly at issue. BTW, if you throw your phone into the back seat out of arms reach when the officer pulls you over, then it can't be searched incident arrest.....

      • by dave562 (969951)

        Yes it can. If you are arrested and your vehicle is impounded, anything in the vehicle is fair game. It's just like if you and a friend are pulled over, and your friend tosses a bag of crack into the backseat. Legally, since the driver is "in control of the vehicle" then the crack belongs to the driver, unless the passenger claims it.

        The phone could be stuffed into the wheel well of the car and it is still fair game for search if the driver is arrested.

        Moral of the story, if the police are searching your

  • Good to see the Democratics acting as a counterbalance to the Republicans.

    What is next? Open season on the baby seals in Monterey Bay?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Good to see the Democrats acting as a counterbalance to the Republicans.

      Big government Republicans and big government Democrats both lead to a loss of rights. It's not the party, it's the Big Government; it is incompatible with citizens rights. I'd suggest voting for libertarianesque Republicans or Tea Party (Not all of them, I know!). Those people don't want the goverment to fuck with you so they shouldn't go against your social agenda even if they don't agree with you. I know it's hard if you hold t

      • by hedwards (940851)

        So, instead of big government you vote for big corporations. Like most people with any sense, I'd rather have big government as I at least get to vote for them. That being said, apart from libtards, most people recognize that you can have a moderately sized government, even if it does somewhat fluctuate in size without ending up in some Orwell novel.

    • by roc97007 (608802)

      Yeah, but not with firearms, because California Democrats hate them. I'm thinking.... Frisbees. No... Harpoons? Oh hell no. Um,,,, syringes on sticks?

    • by einhverfr (238914)

      Well, given that the American Jobs Act (Obama's jobs bill) auctions off government-owned RF spectra reserved for emergency services, I am betting for auctioning off mining rights to our national parks.......

  • Really? THE most important? California is the most populous state in the Union and is in the middle of a budget crisis, its school system is in disarray, its unemployment rate is over 12%, there is a huge drug trafficking problem, human trafficking problem, public official corruption problem and whether a cop can search your *phone* is the largest issue on the Governor's plate for the ENTIRE YEAR? Who thinks this? Are these the same people that agonize over which color sweater their dog should wear this win
  • If a liberal like Jerry Brown won't support basic civil liberties, who the hell will?
  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Monday October 10, 2011 @08:56PM (#37673508)
    Why do we need a law when warrentless searching of ones personal documents is clearly a violation of the constitution? Oh, that's right, we don't have a constitution anymore. I forgot.
  • I'm thinking an app that quickly resets your phone back to factory condition (and blanks the SD card) would be really popular in California about now.

    Maybe a gesture followed by a long press, something that isn't obvious, couldn't be done accidentally and is unlikely to be done by your butt. Or, I know, a particular pattern of the volume control up and down arrows. With many phones this could be done without even taking it out of the holster.

    Or (this would be really cool) the app would quickly substitutes

  • by sjames (1099) on Monday October 10, 2011 @09:05PM (#37673594) Homepage

    According to the World English Dictionary:

    1. Also called: personal effects personal property or belongings

    According to the Bill of Rights:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    What about that is so complicated that the courts and the governor can't understand it? A cellphone is an effect and the Bill of rights says you need a warrant to search those. It offers no exceptions.

    • The KEY is that it is unlocked. They can take the knife from your pocket without permission and check any blood it may have on it. Also, "reasonable" is subjective. A digital pocket holding digital items of interest is what we are dealing with here.

      If you lock it poorly and they get in without warrants then what is "reasonable" comes into play in a totally different way. You have the "expectation of" privacy/security clearly indicated when it is locked so then it should be unreasonable to search it. What i

      • by Rich0 (548339)

        The problem is the slippery slope.

        A literal reading of the constitution would require a warrant to take something out of your pockets.

        Now, the exception was generally made that when you're being arrested the officer is allowed to check you for weapons, check your ID, etc. That isn't unreasonable - he had to have probable cause to arrest you and checking for weapons just is being practical.

        The problem is that it leads to things like - while I checked for weapons I happened to notice his gun was still hot, o

    • You have no rights.

      Only corporatiions and bankers who pay off the politicians have rights.

      Occupy! Stand up against the tyrants who've taken over, wherever you may be.

  • I hate to bring reality into this discussion, but the bill that was passed allows the police to search phones of people "incident to arrest".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_incident_to_a_lawful_arrest [wikipedia.org]

    For those of you too busy to read the wiki page, what that means is that the police officer has to have already arrested a person for some other lawful cause before they can search the phone. As a corollary to that, if the original arrest is not lawful then anything discovered while searching the phone w

    • by jasno (124830)

      Yeah, like if they arrest you for disorderly conduct or assembling without a permit?

      I'm sure it's already been said, but if we didn't have a drug war we wouldn't be having this discussion. The drug war just may end up destroying the western liberal tradition.

  • Let's assume the government isn't interested in defending liberty; historically, they really haven't been.

    What kind of technical security do any phones have, especially against aggressive portable electronics that can do raw flash reads?

    Assuming my iPhone 4 (running latest 4.x iOS) has Data Protection enabled and my phone is turned off when the police get ahold of it, how secure is my data? My understanding is that the flash can be read, but data like mail and contacts are encrypted.

    Is this even remotely "

  • by t2t10 (1909766) on Monday October 10, 2011 @11:57PM (#37675050)

    The courts interpreted current law and came to the conclusion that these kinds of warrantless searches were legal.

    That is why the law is being changed: it doesn't reflect what we the people want.

    In effect the governor's justification for the veto is: "you can't pass this new law because it would change existing law". Well, that's the whole point of passing a new law!

Vax Vobiscum

Working...