OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...13-132&TY=2013

Oral argument from last week's Supreme Court case "Riley v.
California". It's mainly about the difference between the police
searching your wallet and searching your smartphone. There is some
technical stuff (like referring to prior cases), but most of it is
common language.

Charles Lindbergh spirit stlouis.com wrote:

John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid
wrote:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...13-132&TY=2013

Oral argument from last week's Supreme Court case "Riley v.
California". It's mainly about the difference between the police
searching your wallet and searching your smartphone. There is
some technical stuff (like referring to prior cases), but most
of it is common language.

I listened to the entire recording. Reminds me of the quote
from Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

I was most impressed by the statement that they can copy
everything and keep it in a permanent archive.

On 05/16/2014 04:53 PM, John Doe wrote:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...13-132&TY=2013

Oral argument from last week's Supreme Court case "Riley v.
California". It's mainly about the difference between the police
searching your wallet and searching your smartphone. There is some
technical stuff (like referring to prior cases), but most of it is
common language.

In my case, it doesn't matter. There's little to be found in either one!

TJ

On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:41:56 -0400, TJ wrote:

On 05/16/2014 04:53 PM, John Doe wrote:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...13-132&TY=2013

Oral argument from last week's Supreme Court case "Riley v.
California". It's mainly about the difference between the police
searching your wallet and searching your smartphone. There is some
technical stuff (like referring to prior cases), but most of it is
common language.

In my case, it doesn't matter. There's little to be found in either one!

TJ

Not so sure here. I keep my grocery shopping list and my gasoline record
in mine.

(Is it OK if I leave the smiley implicit?)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

The very next case argument is the same subject. Skip to the
second part of the oral argument and listen to Samuel Alito's
seething disregard of your privacy.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...13-212&TY=2013





http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...13-132&TY=2013

Oral argument from last week's Supreme Court case "Riley v.
California". It's mainly about the difference between the police
searching your wallet and searching your smartphone. There is some
technical stuff (like referring to prior cases), but most of it is
common language.

On 5/17/2014 8:41 AM, TJ wrote:
On 05/16/2014 04:53 PM, John Doe wrote:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...13-132&TY=2013


Oral argument from last week's Supreme Court case "Riley v.
California". It's mainly about the difference between the police
searching your wallet and searching your smartphone. There is some
technical stuff (like referring to prior cases), but most of it is
common language.

In my case, it doesn't matter. There's little to be found in either one!

TJ


It's far too late for anyone to be concerned. The pond is already
polluted. More personal information is collect by Google than all
governmental agencies combined.

The people I speak to about web tracking laugh while the same ones
seem to fear the Big Brother not realizing they are one in the same.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:10:31 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

(Is it OK if I leave the smiley implicit?)

If, after you leave, (s)he turns grumpy from having been smiley, I'd hazard
the guess that your implicit thought it was *not* OK to leave him/her :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:41:56 -0400, TJ wrote:

On 05/16/2014 04:53 PM, John Doe wrote:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...13-132&TY=2013

Oral argument from last week's Supreme Court case "Riley v.
California". It's mainly about the difference between the police
searching your wallet and searching your smartphone. There is some
technical stuff (like referring to prior cases), but most of it is
common language.

In my case, it doesn't matter. There's little to be found in either one!



"And then they came after me"
OWTTE
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On Sat, 17 May 2014 22:44:14 -0400, tlvp wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2014 12:10:31 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

(Is it OK if I leave the smiley implicit?)

If, after you leave, (s)he turns grumpy from having been smiley, I'd hazard
the guess that your implicit thought it was *not* OK to leave him/her :-) .

Cheers, -- tlvp

In my experience, they were mostly *happy* when I left...

Assuming I figured out what you're saying...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

"Shadow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:41:56 -0400, TJ wrote:

On 05/16/2014 04:53 PM, John Doe wrote:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...13-132&TY=2013

Oral argument from last week's Supreme Court case "Riley v.
California". It's mainly about the difference between the police
searching your wallet and searching your smartphone. There is some
technical stuff (like referring to prior cases), but most of it is
common language.

In my case, it doesn't matter. There's little to be found in either one!



"And then they came after me"

Bingo. I have nothing to hide but that doesn't mean I want them invading my
privacy. My phone is locked and they're not getting the code from me. We
are inching further and further into a police state in the USA. Just as we
have become servants to the government, we are becoming servants to he
police.

Per PAS:
My phone is locked and they're not getting the code from me.

That's the first thing that popped into my mind when I read about the
case. I would assume that situation is being addressed in the court's
proceeding. Does anybody know how?
--
Pete Cresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per PAS:
My phone is locked and they're not getting the code from me.

That's the first thing that popped into my mind when I read about the
case. I would assume that situation is being addressed in the court's
proceeding. Does anybody know how?
--
Pete Cresswell

The cops have an app that can bypass the lock on a phone. But there's an
app for that too - one that wipes out the data on the phone once it detects
the app that bypasses the lock.

Under the guise of "keeping us safe", our rights are being violated and it
took an ugly turn with the Patriot Act and that has been strengthened under
the current administration. Frankly, I believe that law enforcement will do
whatever they can to gather evidence against people, regardless of the oath
they take to uphold the law and Constitution. Many are now using Stingrays
to eavesdrop on cell phone calls without a warrant

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...olice/3902809/

We're being watched by more-and-more surveillance cameras. There are red
light and now speed cameras cropping up everywhere all in the interest of
extracting as much money from or pockets as possible. If anyone believes
that the purpose of red light and speed cameras is for safety, I have a
bridge they may be interested in buying. In Nassau County, Long Island, a
new labor agreement has been reached with the police and detectives union.
The county has to borrow money to meet it's expenses. They are installing
more red light and speed cameras in order to get the money to fund the
contract agreements with the police. Many of the police officers earn
six-figure incomes and the top detective salary is about a quarter of a
million a year. They are under increasing pressure to get more revenue for
the county by writing tickets and it also benefits them. Sounds like a
conflict of interest. And don't get me started on the increasing
militarization of the police, that's a whole other issue.

PAS wrote, On 5/19/2014 11:17 AM:
In Nassau County, Long Island, a
new labor agreement has been reached with the police and detectives union.
The county has to borrow money to meet it's expenses. They are installing
more red light and speed cameras in order to get the money to fund the
contract agreements with the police. Many of the police officers earn
six-figure incomes and the top detective salary is about a quarter of a
million a year.


NYPD Salary starts at $44,744 and increases to $46,288 after 6 months.
Increases then take place every 12 months to the following:
$46,288 - $48,173 - $53,819 - $58,786 - $62,455 - $69,005
and finally, $90,829.
http://www.police-officer-pages.com/...#ixzz32B7bH4X8

Even with a new contract the percentage increased would be nowhere near
substantiated a jump from 2010 salary thus 'many six-figure and quarter
of a million for detectives' might be inflated numbers. Those 6 figure
numbers drop off rapidly for the majority of police officers and even
with overtime there does not appear to be a single detective in any
position classification (of over 12,000 total employed) earning 250K.
http://longisland.newsday.com/templa...sc=yes&pid=345

For current range of 2014 salaries go here for better accuracy.
http://www1.salary.com/NY/police-officer-salary.html



--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

"...winston" wrote in message
...
PAS wrote, On 5/19/2014 11:17 AM:
In Nassau County, Long Island, a
new labor agreement has been reached with the police and detectives
union.
The county has to borrow money to meet it's expenses. They are
installing
more red light and speed cameras in order to get the money to fund the
contract agreements with the police. Many of the police officers earn
six-figure incomes and the top detective salary is about a quarter of a
million a year.


NYPD Salary starts at $44,744 and increases to $46,288 after 6 months.
Increases then take place every 12 months to the following:
$46,288 - $48,173 - $53,819 - $58,786 - $62,455 - $69,005
and finally, $90,829.
http://www.police-officer-pages.com/...#ixzz32B7bH4X8

Even with a new contract the percentage increased would be nowhere near
substantiated a jump from 2010 salary thus 'many six-figure and quarter of
a million for detectives' might be inflated numbers. Those 6 figure
numbers drop off rapidly for the majority of police officers and even with
overtime there does not appear to be a single detective in any position
classification (of over 12,000 total employed) earning 250K.
http://longisland.newsday.com/templa...sc=yes&pid=345

For current range of 2014 salaries go here for better accuracy.
http://www1.salary.com/NY/police-officer-salary.html

I posted that the top detective salary is about $250K. Of course, not all
or many are earning that but it is correct, that's the top salary.

As of 2010, there were 2,250 members on the force. 1,103 made over 100K in
2010 http://longisland.newsday.com/templa...pleDB/?pid=173 IMO, that
qualifies as "many".

The situation is the same where I live in Long Island's other country,
Suffolk. The officers receive a pension based on the average of their last
three years earnings. What happens in those last three years is that the
pensions are padded by the officers working a lot of overtime. I know how
the drill works. Make an arrest at the end of a shift and the officer has a
couple of hours or even more of overtime to process the person they arrested
through the system. The pensions ought to be based on the average of their
base pay, not including overtime.

On 05/19/2014 08:55 AM, PAS wrote:
"Shadow" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 May 2014 08:41:56 -0400, TJ wrote:

On 05/16/2014 04:53 PM, John Doe wrote:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...13-132&TY=2013

Oral argument from last week's Supreme Court case "Riley v.
California". It's mainly about the difference between the police
searching your wallet and searching your smartphone. There is some
technical stuff (like referring to prior cases), but most of it is
common language.

In my case, it doesn't matter. There's little to be found in either one!



"And then they came after me"

Bingo. I have nothing to hide but that doesn't mean I want them invading my
privacy. My phone is locked and they're not getting the code from me. We
are inching further and further into a police state in the USA. Just as we
have become servants to the government, we are becoming servants to he
police.


A. My phone is dumb. All they'll find on it is some family phone numbers.

B. I'm not in the habit of using my tablet away from home, so if stopped
for a traffic infraction, there's nothing to search.

C. My wallet contains a driver's license, insurance card, credit card,
and occasionally, some cash. Nothing that they can't find out through
other means if they want to.

D. If they want to come after me, they will, regardless of whether they
can search my tablet or wallet. Until they do, I choose not to live in
fear.

TJ