OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?

"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.

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.

In Charles Lindbergh
wrote:

Of course there are variables, but if you store anything on your
Android phone which could help convict you of a crime,

What might that be? What's perfectly innocent today will be evidence of
a felony tomorrow.

--
St. Paul, MN

In news wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:21:27 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:

In Charles Lindbergh
wrote:

Of course there are variables, but if you store anything on your
Android phone which could help convict you of a crime,

What might that be? What's perfectly innocent today will be evidence
of a felony tomorrow.

I do not live that close to the edge, but I understand your point.

The problem with that attitude is that you really don't know where the
edge is.

--
St. Paul, MN

In Charles Lindbergh
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:31:00 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:

In news wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:21:27 +0000 (UTC), Bert
wrote:

In Charles Lindbergh
wrote:

Of course there are variables, but if you store anything on your
Android phone which could help convict you of a crime,

What might that be? What's perfectly innocent today will be evidence
of a felony tomorrow.

I do not live that close to the edge, but I understand your point.

The problem with that attitude is that you really don't know where the
edge is.

Actually, because of my occupation, I have a pretty good idea of where
to find the edge.

Well, hope you don't one day find yourself on the wrong side of it.

Good luck.

--
St. Paul, MN

On 10/06/2014 17:13, Charles Lindbergh wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 23:06:41 -0500, G. Morgan
wrote:

Charles Lindbergh wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2014 20:53:49 +0000 (UTC), 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.

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've had that sig for quite a while.

I keep my phone locked with a pattern. If a cop wants to search it
he/she will have to produce a warrant before I even consider showing them
the unlock pattern.

The pattern locking isn't really much of a challenge to defeat. See:

http://niiconsulting.com/checkmate/2...-pattern-lock/

Of course there are variables, but if you store anything on your Android phone
which could help convict you of a crime, you should stop doing so.


That page says:

Limitations
The device should be rooted
The device should have USB debugging mode enabled

So it's limited to someone who has rooted their phone and accidentally
left USB debugging enabled.

--

Brian Gregory (in the UK).
To email me please remove all the letter vee from my email address.

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.

On John Doe wrote:
snipped

There is no need to worry because we use Tor network to communicate with
you so you are safe with us.

You haven't told us how many young boys you want so please let us know
because Paul and Vanguard are having something big this weekend. They
have three young latinos.


--
Al Sparber - PVII
http://www.projectseven.com
The Finest Dreamweaver Menus | Galleries | Widgets
Since 1998

In a 9-0 decision, the winner is... Privacy!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...2014.html?_r=1



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 Thu, 26 Jun 2014 01:43:27 +0000, John Doe wrote:

In a 9-0 decision, the winner is... Privacy!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...supreme-court-
decisions-in-2014.html?_r=1



http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...o_detail.aspx?
argument=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 don't know what you think the police will do, but I know for a fact
what they do in the netherlands, regardless of what they are entitled to
do.
They search and store everything and keep it forever, just like our ISP's
Windows, Google and all other companies that manage to steel our private
data.


Edmund

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 01:43:27 +0000, John Doe wrote:

In a 9-0 decision, the winner is... Privacy!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...supreme-court-
decisions-in-2014.html?_r=1



http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...o_detail.aspx?
argument=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 don't know what you think the police will do, but I know for a fact
what they do in the netherlands, regardless of what they are entitled to
do.
They search and store everything and keep it forever, just like our ISP's
Windows, Google and all other companies that manage to steel our private
data.


Edmund

The police here in the USA seem to be no different. There is a difference
between what they are permitted to do and what they actually do. The
"climate" of law enforcement has changed. Citizens are viewed as suspicious
and we are treated that way. The police are supposed to protect and serve
the public, they do neither. The courts have ruled that they are not
obligated to protect us. They serve their own interests rather than the
public's.

"PAS" ntotrr optonline.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

In a 9-0 decision, the winner is... Privacy!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...2014.html?_r=1

There is a difference between what they are permitted to do and
what they actually do. The "climate" of law enforcement has
changed. Citizens are viewed as suspicious and we are treated
that way. The police are supposed to protect and serve the
public, they do neither. The courts have ruled that they are
not obligated to protect us.

Citations please...

They serve their own interests rather than the public's.

I would bet that the percentage of bad cops roughly parallels the
percentage of bad people. To most of them, it's a job, just like
work is to the rest of us. Cops have to deal with some very slimy
people. And when you are dealing with a cop, you need to respect
its power. But of course on the Internet your ego runs wild. I've
seen plenty of morons on the Internet bashing police officers.










--
Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "PAS" ntotrr optonline.net
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.windows7.general,comp.mobile.android
Subject: OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:38:37 -0400
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Lines: 39
Message-ID: loh7oq$3j0$1 speranza.aioe.org
References: ll5tss$lr2$2 dont-email.me loftrv$36q$1 dont-email.me logfhm$k47$1 dont-email.me
NNTP-Posting-Host: IDZA8Fot3QCrC0IFDB55Pw.user.speranza.aioe.org
X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:30594 alt.windows7.general:102806 comp.mobile.android:9369

On 26/06/2014 18:20, John Doe wrote:


I would bet that the percentage of bad cops roughly parallels the
percentage of bad people. To most of them, it's a job, just like
work is to the rest of us. Cops have to deal with some very slimy
people. And when you are dealing with a cop, you need to respect
its power. But of course on the Internet your ego runs wild. I've
seen plenty of morons on the Internet bashing police officers.

Are you an American?

pointless troll...

--
OldeGit am yon.in wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!e asy.in-chemnitz.de!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!wer etis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!wieslauf.sub.de! .POSTED!not-for-mail
From: OldeGit am yon.in
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.windows7.general,comp.mobile.android ,free.usenet,free.spirit
Subject: OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:43:43 +0100
Organization: Wieslauf BBS
Lines: 12
Message-ID: lohm4a$ek2$1 wieslauf.sub.de
References: ll5tss$lr2$2 dont-email.me loftrv$36q$1 dont-email.me logfhm$k47$1 dont-email.me loh7oq$3j0$1 speranza.aioe.org lohknv$3t0$1 dont-email.me
NNTP-Posting-Host: CaFM7y3/L6Rfwkj8am32/w.user.wieslauf.sub.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet wieslauf.sub.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:43:38 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20140502 FossaMail/24.5.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XN0F3CCfg5Qqsh8QTGvgZAHg+tU=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:30597 alt.windows7.general:102849 comp.mobile.android:9371 free.usenet:6418173 free.spirit:1927

On 26/06/2014 18:20, John Doe wrote:


I would bet that the percentage of bad cops roughly parallels the
percentage of bad people. To most of them, it's a job, just like
work is to the rest of us. Cops have to deal with some very slimy
people. And when you are dealing with a cop, you need to respect
its power. But of course on the Internet your ego runs wild. I've
seen plenty of morons on the Internet bashing police officers.

Are you an American?

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
"PAS" ntotrr optonline.net wrote:

John Doe wrote:

In a 9-0 decision, the winner is... Privacy!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...2014.html?_r=1

There is a difference between what they are permitted to do and
what they actually do. The "climate" of law enforcement has
changed. Citizens are viewed as suspicious and we are treated
that way. The police are supposed to protect and serve the
public, they do neither. The courts have ruled that they are
not obligated to protect us.

Citations please...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0 but you'll
argue about anyway, won't you?

They serve their own interests rather than the public's.

I would bet that the percentage of bad cops roughly parallels the
percentage of bad people. To most of them, it's a job, just like
work is to the rest of us. Cops have to deal with some very slimy
people. And when you are dealing with a cop, you need to respect
its power. But of course on the Internet your ego runs wild. I've
seen plenty of morons on the Internet bashing police officers.

It's not "just a job". Did you take on oath to protect and preserve the
Constitution when you got your job? Do you carry a gun and have the power
to arrest people and change the course of their lives? No, it's not just a
job, it's a position that carries a lot of responsibility. Cops need to
respect the citizens who they are supposed to serve and who pay their
salaries rather than treat us as suspects. Wait until the day comes when
you are harassed for doing absolutely nothing wrong and are unfortunate
enough to have to deal with a bully cop who is having a bad day and wants to
take it out on someone. The bad cops are in the minority but the good ones,
despite what they may claim, do nothing but cover for them.