Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday June 19 2019, @12:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-my-data-no-matter-*where*-it-was-stored dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow4463

ACLU: Police must get warrants to obtain personal data from cars

You might not think of your car as a treasure trove of personal data, but it frequently is -- performance data, phone contacts and location info may be sitting under the hood. And the American Civil Liberties Union wants to be sure police can't just take it. The organization is appearing as a friend of the court in Georgia's Supreme Court on June 19th to argue that personal data on cars is protected by the US Constitution's Fourth Amendment and thus requires a warrant. The appearance is tied to a case, Mobley vs. State, where police used a car's "black box" to level more serious charges.

After a deadly car crash, Georgia police downloaded data from the Event Data Recorder on Mobley's car to determine his speed before the crash, using that to level more severe accusations against him. Georgia has contended that this was legal under the Fourth Amendment's "vehicle exception" allowing searches for physical items, but the ACLU believes this doesn't count for digital data. It likened this to requiring a warrant for phone data -- just because the device holding the data is obtainable without a warrant doesn't mean the data is also up for grabs.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:39AM (6 children)

    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:39AM (#857277) Homepage Journal

    The car's speed is not personal data. Otherwise we have to outlaw police radar. In fact, any witness to your car's speed wouldn't be admissible.

    The car's speed is public. Fuck the driver.

    Certainly, the car's speed isn't someone's "personal papers and effects," so on the surface your reasoning would appear to be valid.

    And if that speed was externally recorded by radar or other means, there is no expectation of privacy for such *externally* collected data.

    However, since the data was recorded on and by the car owner's equipment, such data would seem to belong to the car's owner. Just as you need to get a warrant to search someone's computer (and a car's "black box" is certainly computer storage), it seems reasonable to require that of data storage in a car.

    I don't see it as a "slippery slope" argument either. It's data privately collected and owned by they owner of the car. As such, the driver (or the owner, if they are not the same person) of the car would need to either consent to a search of the data storage, or the police need to get a warrant for such a search.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Underrated=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:56AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @01:56AM (#857286)

    Everything about the vehicle's motion is public, or should be, no matter who records it. However, I really only mean that for forensics in an accident, not for your average fishing expedition in cop on black crime. In an accident, all info is valid, no matter how it is acquired. The truth must always take precedence.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:16AM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:16AM (#857296) Journal

      I'm not sure you are actually disagreeing with the parent post you replied to. You don't want police to go on "fishing expeditions" in most cases but believe police should have access to data in the case of an accident.

      That's NOT a "public record." That's a record you get under circumstances where you believe an illegal offense may have been committed. An accident where the car is question is clearly at-fault or where fault is uncertain would seem to constitute probable cause for a warrant to determine whether additional offenses or crimes were committed during the accident.

      That's the ACLU's point here -- the police shouldn't just be able to get the data, which might contain evidence of speeding an hour before the accident or other random stuff that could be incriminating. Instead, the police should obtain a warrant for very specific data relating to the accident -- IF there is cause. (Again, what about another driver who is clearly not at fault in the accident from an examination of basic physical evidence, but ends up being ensnared with random data that showed a connection to another unrelated crime or offense based on the data. No, the data shouldn't be public, but it should be made available to police only when circumstances warrant -- no pun intended.)

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:35AM

      by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:35AM (#857301) Homepage Journal

      However, I really only mean that for forensics in an accident, not for your average fishing expedition in cop on black crime. In an accident, all info is valid, no matter how it is acquired. The truth must always take precedence.

      I don't (as AthanasiusKircher pointed out [soylentnews.org]) necessarily disagree with that.

      But remember, we're talking about a criminal investigation and potential criminal charges. This isn't just an insurance investigation or a civil lawsuit. The law is quite different for civil matters.

      My point is that the search of the "black box" is the same thing as searching your computer or your house.

      As such, police should either get consent for the search or a warrant from a judge. If the police don't have enough to convince a judge that they have "probable cause," then it *is* just a fishing expedition, IMHO.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @06:31AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 19 2019, @06:31AM (#857339)

      This is a little O/T but, given the tone of your comment, here's a bit of unsolicited advice:
      Never Talk To The Police [youtube.com]

      The police's job is to investigate crimes and gather evidence so a prosecutor can get a conviction. If they decide (or are trying to decide if) that's going to be you, you need to protect yourself.

      This includes not consenting to searches of your person or possessions. There are circumstances where police do not *need* a warrant to search [findlaw.com], but outside of those specific circumstances, the police may not search you or your home/car/possessions without your *consent* or a warrant signed by a judge.

      It also includes keeping your mouth shut other than to be polite ("with all due respect, I prefer not to speak with you, sir." "Am I being detained, sir?", etc., etc., etc.). Even answering seemingly innocuous questions like "What are you doing here?" can elicit a response that could later be used to make you *look* guilty, even if you're completely blameless in whatever they happen to be investigating.

      The police and prosecutors do *not* play fair. They have nearly unlimited resources, and will use them all against you if they decide you belong in an 8x10 box for some period of time.

      But don't take my word for it. Watch the video. Half is a criminal defense attorney/law school professor, and the other half is a police officer with ~20 years experience. And they both say exactly the same thing.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday June 19 2019, @09:38AM (1 child)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday June 19 2019, @09:38AM (#857379) Journal

        James Duane's advice has been slightly updated:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FENubmZGj8 [youtube.com]

        TL;DR: Ask for a lawyer. Insist on it repeatedly. That tends to shut down questioning.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:04PM

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday June 19 2019, @02:04PM (#857435) Homepage Journal

          I just finished watching, and there is some updated, and extremely useful, information in the video you linked.

          However, I'd say that the original is still worth watching. I say this for a couple reasons:
          1. Duane isn't shilling for his book in the original, and is much more expansive on why you shouldn't talk to the police, instead of just saying "if you want to know the answer, read the book.";
          2. Having an experienced police officer agree with absolutely everything that Duane says is really powerful. What's more, the cop gives *concrete examples* of how the police routinely lie to people, from the point of view of the police. It's quite chilling, in fact;

          That said, it's definitely worth a look. Thanks for posting it!

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr