If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rating: | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
"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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
"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$1 dont-email.me NNTP-Posting-Host: IDZA8Fot3QCrC0IFDB55Pw.user.speranza.aioe.org X-Complaints-To: abuse aioe.org X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:30594 alt.windows7.general:102806 comp.mobile.android:9369 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
On 26/06/2014 18:20, John Doe wrote:
I would bet that the percentage of bad cops roughly parallels the percentage of bad people. To most of them, it's a job, just like work is to the rest of us. Cops have to deal with some very slimy people. And when you are dealing with a cop, you need to respect its power. But of course on the Internet your ego runs wild. I've seen plenty of morons on the Internet bashing police officers. Are you an American? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
pointless troll...
-- OldeGit am yon.in wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!e asy.in-chemnitz.de!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!wer etis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!wieslauf.sub.de! .POSTED!not-for-mail From: OldeGit am yon.in Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.windows7.general,comp.mobile.android ,free.usenet,free.spirit Subject: OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet? Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:43:43 +0100 Organization: Wieslauf BBS Lines: 12 Message-ID: lohm4a$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? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
OT Should the police search your smartphone/tablet?
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|