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.

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)

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 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)

On Sun, 18 May 2014 14:49:10 -0700, Gene E. Bloch wrote:

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...

If happy, they were probably smiley, too -- anyway, not grumpy -- so it
*is* OK :-) . Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

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 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

"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.

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

"TJ" wrote in message
...
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

I don't live in fear, but I do remain aware of the erosion of our rights.
Like the frog that is put into a pot of water and then the water slowly
heated until it boils to death, we are seeing our rights taken away
little-by-little and then we may arrive at the point where they're all taken
away.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...2014.html?_r=0

For anyone who doesn't think that the Supreme Court is partisan
(and that its questions follow its prejudice), take a look at that
tiny sample. It's not just partisan, it's sexist. The girls always
vote with each other.

For anyone who's interested... A very important decision is still
to come on presidential recess appointments. It's been a hotly
contested issue in the Senate for many years. The oral argument is
interesting because it takes note of our history in explaining why
recess appointments were important. It's an obsolete practice and
hopefully the Supreme Court will widely strike it down.