Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Monday April 28 2014, @08:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the toss-of-a-coin dept.

The US Supreme Court is to rule on warrant-less searches of electronic devices. Law Enforcement (LE) want access, without warrants, to electronic devices of everybody arrested.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday will take on the digital-age controversy over search and seizure of smart-phones and other devices. In two cases coming before the court, warrant-less searches of an electronic device not only provided the basis for criminal prosecutions but also strayed from the original reason for the arrests in question. President Barack Obama's administration and prosecutors from states across the country have lobbied for police officers to be able to search arrestees' gadgets - at or about the time of arrest - without a warrant. Such action, however, demands an examination of the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures." If nine out of 10 American adults own mobile phones and the devices have advanced to become virtual extensions of our personal and private lives, at what point does LE's access to their call logs, photos, and cloud-hosted data become "unreasonable" invasions of constitutionally protected privacy?

 
This discussion has been archived.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 LookIntoTheFuture on Monday April 28 2014, @10:41PM

    by LookIntoTheFuture (462) on Monday April 28 2014, @10:41PM (#37425)
    It saddens me that this issue even needs to be questioned. It scares me that the president finds this practice a-ok. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years. How did that go? You have a right to privacy unless you are using modern devices to store your "papers and effects"?

    If you need to encrypt your devices to prevent government oppression, you have already lost. It will be a sad, sad day if the supreme court rules in favor of a police state.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Underrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:27AM

    by Reziac (2489) on Tuesday April 29 2014, @02:27AM (#37478) Homepage

    We're told that he taught Constitutional law (actually I gather he was a "visiting professor", but that's neither here nor there) but *what* did he teach about it? Did he teach how to uphold the Constitution under the law, or how to get around its pesky restrictions?? Are any of his classes recorded and accessible?

    --
    And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.