Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday August 20 2019, @04:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the unique-interpretation dept.

In August last year, the AFP obtained a warrant under section 3LA of the Crimes Act to unlock a gold-coloured Samsung phone found in the centre console of the man’s car when he was pulled over and searched.

The man supplied the password for a laptop also in the car, and a second phone did not have a pin to unlock, but when asked about the gold phone, he answered “no comment” and would not provide a password for the phone.

He later claimed it wasn’t his phone and he didn’t know the password to access it.

The federal court last month overturned the magistrate’s decision to grant a warrant forcing the man to provide assistance in unlocking the phone.

The decision was overturned on several grounds, notably judge Richard White found that the Samsung phone was not a computer or data storage device as defined by the federal Crimes Act.

The law does not define a computer, but defines data storage devices as a “thing containing, or designed to contain, data for use by a computer”.

White found that the phone could not be defined as a computer or data storage device.

“While a mobile phone may have the capacity to ‘perform mathematical computations electronically according to a series of stored instructions called a program’, it does not seem apt to call such an item a computer,” he said.

“Mobile phones are primarily devices for communicating although it is now commonplace for them to have a number of other functions ... Again, the very ubiquity of mobile phones suggests that, if the parliament had intended that they should be encompassed by the term ‘computer’ it would have been obvious to say so.”


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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 20 2019, @05:30PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 20 2019, @05:30PM (#882693)

    The judge is a buffoon. "Smartphones" are absolutely pocket computers. For many (most?) people, a smartphone's ability to behave as a telephone is way down the list of capabilities regularly used.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday August 20 2019, @06:59PM (1 child)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday August 20 2019, @06:59PM (#882722) Journal

    This is just another example of using convoluted reasoning to get to where you want to go. Luckily this time, those convolutions were used to support privacy, but nonetheless, much of the legal reasoning involved in cases is derived from what outcome one desires and most often, that reasoning is used violate privacy (for example, almost the entirety of the law surrounding the 4A since the start of the drug war).

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by pipedwho on Tuesday August 20 2019, @10:15PM

      by pipedwho (2032) on Tuesday August 20 2019, @10:15PM (#882820)

      Not convoluted reasoning at all. The legally accepted concept of how a computer was used and therefore how it is defined in a legal sense is fixed when the law is made. Allowing it to change dramatically when applying said law opens laws to application that were not originally possible and therefore could never have been intended.

      In this case the broadening of the usage cases of a ‘computer’ have no bearing on the law as written and must either be clarified with a new or amended law. Or the narrowest available definition accepted. Anything else and the legal system becomes open to any number of ambiguous and contradictory interpretations for nearly anything defined in law.

      It only seems convoluted from a layman’s point of view when considering a particular technical definition. A technical definition that would cause this law to supersede and contradict laws pertaining to functionality of a smartphone covered by other laws: telephone equipment, tracking devices, and other expanded functionality.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by meustrus on Tuesday August 20 2019, @09:26PM (4 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday August 20 2019, @09:26PM (#882790)

    But smartphones presumably didn't exist when the Crimes Act was last updated to provide warrants for "computers". How should you handle a law that was written to apply to a specific thing, then the size, convenience, and prevalence of that thing experiences such a seismic shift as smartphones?

    It may fly in the face of reason to say that smartphones are not "computers", as a legal thing it is safer to err on the side of not giving the state more rights than were voted on. Now it's up to the Australian legislature to decide whether they want smartphones to be subject to a warrant in the same way as desktop computers, or if some other scheme makes more sense.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday August 21 2019, @07:50AM (3 children)

      by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @07:50AM (#883015) Journal

      How should you handle a law that was written to apply to a specific thing, then the size, convenience, and prevalence of that thing experiences such a seismic shift as smartphones?

      Update it.

      Or even better, formulate it in a way that you don't depend on the current state of technology. If someone finds a way to murder with the use of a smartphone, we don't get into trouble, applying the law because those people who made murder laws thankfully didn't provide a definitive list of methods use of which would imply murder. Instead they concentrated on the intents and effects of the act.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:03PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:03PM (#883126)

        Great. Then if you are busted they can take your fridge.

        • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:17PM (1 child)

          by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:17PM (#883137) Journal

          Sorry, I cannot see any logical path from my statement to your "conclusion".

          --
          The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
          • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday August 21 2019, @06:12PM

            by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @06:12PM (#883259)

            Smart fridge. A teenager used one to post to Twitter in an article earlier.

            --
            If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 22 2019, @06:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 22 2019, @06:13AM (#883486)
    There's a difference between a technical definition and a legal definition. Same for categories.

    I'd say it's fine for the judge to be cautious about expanding the scope of the laws because there may have been intentions and reasonings behind some of those laws that never were intended to apply to phones, TVs, fridges, airconditioners, cars etc just because people started adding computers to them.