It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Court Says No Warrant Needed for Cellphone Search

page: 3
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 




I don't see how anyone could doubt that our freedoms no longer exist. If we want freedoms again we will have to re-create them.

Except the case in the OP is not about getting data from your cell phone.

But yes, there is no doubt that new technologies will require the crafting of new laws.

edit on 8/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Even tho a court order (but not a search warrant) is required for a cell phone search this ruling does an end around the 4th Amendment and its protections. By changing the rules as to ownership of the cell phone data the court is facilitating the wholesale collection of cellphone data randomly and remotely or even at checkpoints. This ruling is part of a growing invasion into individual privacy and helps set up the structure of a viable police state in America.


This is why you should be password protecting ALL of your electronics. The Police can't force you to reveal your password, and neither can the phone company. It's a violation of your 5th Amendment right to not incriminate yourself. The phone belongs to you even if the communications between you and other users by using that phone belongs to the phone company.The phone company doesn't own the other features of the phone such as password protection.

Honestly, thinking it through, that ruling is wrong. The Police should have to subpoena the phone records from the phone company. The communications record may belong to the phone company, but the phone belongs to you.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by CryHavoc
 


The communications record may belong to the phone company, but the phone belongs to you.
And it is the records, not the phone, which were acquired from the provider, under a court order.

The way the law is, it's legal. According to the decision.
edit on 8/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Someone didn't think this through.
Any TOP SECRET data that may be on a cell phone belongs to the telco company as well.

Hey NSA I know you're listening. You might want to get this changed pronto.



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by CryHavoc

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
Even tho a court order (but not a search warrant) is required for a cell phone search this ruling does an end around the 4th Amendment and its protections. By changing the rules as to ownership of the cell phone data the court is facilitating the wholesale collection of cellphone data randomly and remotely or even at checkpoints. This ruling is part of a growing invasion into individual privacy and helps set up the structure of a viable police state in America.


This is why you should be password protecting ALL of your electronics. The Police can't force you to reveal your password, and neither can the phone company. It's a violation of your 5th Amendment right to not incriminate yourself. The phone belongs to you even if the communications between you and other users by using that phone belongs to the phone company.The phone company doesn't own the other features of the phone such as password protection.

Honestly, thinking it through, that ruling is wrong. The Police should have to subpoena the phone records from the phone company. The communications record may belong to the phone company, but the phone belongs to you.


That's why the feds are going after your password data. You don't have to give them the password, but nothing says they can't figure it out and get access to your device.



new topics

top topics
 
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join