| Title | Australian Judge Claims Mobile Phone Is Not A Computer | |
| Date | Tuesday August 20 2019, @04:22PM | |
| Author | Fnord666 | |
| Topic | ||
| 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.”
| Links |
printed from SoylentNews, Australian Judge Claims Mobile Phone Is Not A Computer on 2024-04-19 01:45:37