SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Some more good news on the Fourth Amendment front, even if it's somewhat jurisdictionally limited: the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has (sort of) decided [PDF] the Supreme Court's Riley decision isn't just for cellphones. (via FourthAmendment.com)
In this case, the search of a robbery suspect's backpack while he was being questioned yielded a ring, a digital camera, and other items. The police warrantlessly searched the digital phone1, discovering a photo of the suspect next to a firearm later determined to have been stolen. This led to two convictions: one for the stolen property and one for carrying a firearm without a license.
The defendant challenged all of the evidence resulting from the warrantless search of the backpack, but the state got to keep most of what it found, along with the conviction for theft. But it didn't get to keep the firearm conviction, as the court here sees digital cameras to be almost no different than cellphones when it comes to warrantless searches and the Riley decision. From the opinion:
The Commonwealth counters that Riley does not apply because digital cameras, lacking the ability to function as computers, are not analogous to cell phones for Fourth Amendment purposes. We decline to address the constitutionality of the search of the digital camera on Fourth Amendment grounds, but we apply the reasoning in Riley in holding that the search of the camera violated art. 14 [of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights].
[1] [I suspect the author meant digital camera, not digital phone - Ed]
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Monday August 28 2017, @07:22PM (6 children)
is no domain specific knowledge.
> because digital cameras, lacking the ability to function as computers
LOL, the guy never had to update the firmware of a camera's LENS.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday August 28 2017, @07:47PM (5 children)
Cameras clearly don't have the ability to function as computers. They are driven by a GUI controlled by buttons, acquire picture and audio data from embedded peripherals, and can send data to wireless networks or over physical cables.
Totally unlike computers, because they don't have a lock screen I guess.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday August 28 2017, @09:17PM (1 child)
How many modern cameras with WiFi, SD card support and GUI interfaces happen to be running Linux?
Nope. No computers here. Nosiree.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:18PM
Another case in point: "Magic Lantern [magiclantern.fm] is a free software add-on that runs from the SD/CF card and adds a host of new features to Canon EOS cameras that weren't included from the factory by Canon."
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday August 29 2017, @04:51PM (2 children)
My old 35mm SLR has no computer, but every single digital device in existence does, including digital cameras. You simply CAN'T take a digital photo without a computer.
I have no idea how your mistaken post got modded up.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 29 2017, @06:48PM (1 child)
You may want to read my post again, realize that we're a tech site, and understand that mocking absurd statements takes many forms.
Tone is hard in text, but others seem to have taken the screen saver hint.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday August 30 2017, @01:52PM
If it had been modded "funny" it would have fit, but the fact that it was at +4 insightful shows that a lot of folks here have no clue about digital tech.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org