I think this US Supreme Court decision could have a huge impact on many aspects of our lives, as well as international relations.
There have been lots of write-ups and articles about it:
I'm disappointed that my state, California is actually defending themselves in this case. The state depends upon the electronic, internet and semiconductor industry for most of its growth, and it appears that they could put a damper on growth if they won this case --which I believe is clearly a violation of citizen privacy. I'm also disappointed that the Obama administration is defending the Government's right to search all of anyone's cell phone for any trumped-up charge.
Police searches for years have focused more and more on the electronics, and it appears that the trend will continue. Searches, for other than illegal drugs, have moved from searching file cabinets and desk drawers to hard drives. Searches for pornography, drug sales, and terrorism plots have all moved to the computer data bases. Immigration and customs officials have been searching laptops and hard drives on routine basis. This type of "fishing expedition" done by police often turns up some sort of violation that allows the police to charge an individual with a crime.
Since many of us now have "our whole lives" on our computer --and most are moving it towards the cell phone, this random search could find chargeable offenses such as income tax violations, child support violations, or even building code violations. From our phones we can now access our bank & investment accounts, our address book, the locations we've been, all phone calls and text messages, all photos, all email, income tax filings and records, all our music, books, videos, and web site visits
It is easy to sympathize with the situation the police are in. They are rated upon their effectiveness. If they pull someone over and don't find something to charge them with, they have, in effect, wasted their time. They really want to stop crime, but are also rated on how many "busts" they score, and how much fine revenue they bring in for their city, county or state. They want to get as much bang for the taxpayer's "buck" they can get --that means writing tickets, citations, or making arrests. Looking through a citizen's cell phone is probably a quick and easy way for them to find something to write a citation for. Even if the Supreme Court does decide that the police need a search warrant to go through a person's phone, they still will use the argument: If you have nothing to hide, why don't you let us quickly search your phone --if we have to get a search warrant, you'll have to stand out along side this highway for an hour or so until someone brings a warrant --and this will be much quicker!
Some privacy problems may not seem too important in a metropolitan area where it is unlikely that you will ever see the same police officer twice. However is rural or small town areas, everyone knows everyone. Friendships and grudges can last a long time. Police are more able to "get even" with old rivals, lovers who have done them wrong, or business competitors of family members.
There are a lot of ancillary questions about police taking and searching a cell phone or laptop:
There have been lots of write-ups and articles about it:
- ABC News: Supreme Court Justices Struggle With Issue of Cell Phone Searches - ABC News:
- National Journal: Supreme Court is about to decide the future of cell phone privacy
- Reuters: US Justices weigh limits on cell phone searches
- The Wire: Looks like the Supreme Court Brushed up on Tech Lingo for this Cell Phone Privacy Case
- Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) - Riley v. California
I'm disappointed that my state, California is actually defending themselves in this case. The state depends upon the electronic, internet and semiconductor industry for most of its growth, and it appears that they could put a damper on growth if they won this case --which I believe is clearly a violation of citizen privacy. I'm also disappointed that the Obama administration is defending the Government's right to search all of anyone's cell phone for any trumped-up charge.
Police searches for years have focused more and more on the electronics, and it appears that the trend will continue. Searches, for other than illegal drugs, have moved from searching file cabinets and desk drawers to hard drives. Searches for pornography, drug sales, and terrorism plots have all moved to the computer data bases. Immigration and customs officials have been searching laptops and hard drives on routine basis. This type of "fishing expedition" done by police often turns up some sort of violation that allows the police to charge an individual with a crime.
Since many of us now have "our whole lives" on our computer --and most are moving it towards the cell phone, this random search could find chargeable offenses such as income tax violations, child support violations, or even building code violations. From our phones we can now access our bank & investment accounts, our address book, the locations we've been, all phone calls and text messages, all photos, all email, income tax filings and records, all our music, books, videos, and web site visits
It is easy to sympathize with the situation the police are in. They are rated upon their effectiveness. If they pull someone over and don't find something to charge them with, they have, in effect, wasted their time. They really want to stop crime, but are also rated on how many "busts" they score, and how much fine revenue they bring in for their city, county or state. They want to get as much bang for the taxpayer's "buck" they can get --that means writing tickets, citations, or making arrests. Looking through a citizen's cell phone is probably a quick and easy way for them to find something to write a citation for. Even if the Supreme Court does decide that the police need a search warrant to go through a person's phone, they still will use the argument: If you have nothing to hide, why don't you let us quickly search your phone --if we have to get a search warrant, you'll have to stand out along side this highway for an hour or so until someone brings a warrant --and this will be much quicker!
Some privacy problems may not seem too important in a metropolitan area where it is unlikely that you will ever see the same police officer twice. However is rural or small town areas, everyone knows everyone. Friendships and grudges can last a long time. Police are more able to "get even" with old rivals, lovers who have done them wrong, or business competitors of family members.
There are a lot of ancillary questions about police taking and searching a cell phone or laptop:
- How long can the police keep the cell phone? While in their possession, are police responsible for any damage to hardware, software or files?
- Do they provide citizens with another phone to use while they have yours? If they have taken all of your files and records within the phone, can they provide you a copy back to use -- some business are dependent upon it.
- Do citizens have to give police their pass code, or finger print scan to be able to access their phone? Are there penalties if they don't provide that access? My phone has an SD memory card that can hold a lot of files. Will we also have to provide that chip? If we have multiple chips, will we have to provide all of them?
- Do you have to give police passwords so they can get onto your "cloud" files from your cell phone? In fact, a lot of the information that appears to be on the phone, is often, actually on a server accessible from the phone.
- Are police permitted to crack your passwords to go through your phone, laptop hard drive, or cloud files?
- How are we, as citizens, protected from police sneaking files or records onto our phone or laptop that could incriminate us? There are strict protocols for crime scenes, but probably not for cell phone searches.
- Are police permitted to make a copy of everything on your phone, hard drive, or cloud? How will the integrity of that copy be maintained?
I believe that the Supreme Court has a very tough challenge in making this decision. I hope they agree to error on the side of freedom vs police state. We've lost too much freedom and privacy lately. Police argue that they need these powers to fight crime. However crime is down --way down in the US and the world. If recreational drugs weren't illegal they would have nothing to do, and they know that they would need less than half of the existing numbers of police, prosecutors, judges, bailiffs, court reporters, prisons and prison guards --all part of the "business" they are in.
