If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   SCOTUS: You know we might have to discuss how the Constitution applies to stuff like say your cell phone, you know like the Fourth Amendment   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 148
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, supreme courts, fourth amendment, amendments, cell phones, organizations, counter-terrorism, Nick Stahl  
•       •       •

3633 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Aug 2013 at 12:48 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-05 10:58:58 AM
I'm going to start off with saying that this justification for collection of metadata is NOT one that I agree with. However, I can see where an argument can be made for this view:

Your phone call is basically like sending a letter through the mail. It is absolutely illegal to open a letter and examine its contents, but if one wants to make the effort, they can examine the envelope of the letter and determine its source, its destination, whether its registered, the stamp that's affixed, how thick the envelope is, etc.

I'm wondering what people think about that?
 
2013-08-05 11:13:11 AM

SurfaceTension: I'm going to start off with saying that this justification for collection of metadata is NOT one that I agree with. However, I can see where an argument can be made for this view:

Your phone call is basically like sending a letter through the mail. It is absolutely illegal to open a letter and examine its contents, but if one wants to make the effort, they can examine the envelope of the letter and determine its source, its destination, whether its registered, the stamp that's affixed, how thick the envelope is, etc.

I'm wondering what people think about that?



To make a fair comparison, it would be as though every single piece of mail processed by the postal system passed through a government building, before being delivered, wherein all of the information you mention was recorded and stored in perpetuity. Sounds like the sort of thing J. Edgar Hoover would have creamed his bloomers over.
 
2013-08-05 11:16:51 AM
I'm curious, if your phone has a pass code, do agencies still search it without a warrant? Is that going to be the dividing line?
 
2013-08-05 11:22:38 AM

Sybarite: To make a fair comparison, it would be as though every single piece of mail processed by the postal system passed through a government building, before being delivered,


Not to quibble, but this actually happens.

Sybarite: wherein all of the information you mention was recorded and stored in perpetuity.


This, not so much. At least not that we are aware.
 
2013-08-05 11:28:01 AM

Tom_Slick: I'm curious, if your phone has a pass code, do agencies still search it without a warrant? Is that going to be the dividing line?


I could see there being some kind of "Plain Sight" argument made using that.
 
2013-08-05 11:33:18 AM
IDK, My BFF - the Fourth Amendment!
 
2013-08-05 11:33:47 AM

Tom_Slick: I'm curious, if your phone has a pass code, do agencies still search it without a warrant? Is that going to be the dividing line?


That's what I'm hoping for. I wonder if there's precedent involving a locked box in a purse or something like that.
 
2013-08-05 11:36:02 AM
I don't see how they could possibly have the authority to do this. Both Justice Scalia and I have Command-F'd the entire Constitution (plus all Amendments), The Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation and the Iroquois's Great Binding Law and failed to find one even one instance of the word "cell phone." So there.
 
2013-08-05 11:37:25 AM

nmrsnr: Tom_Slick: I'm curious, if your phone has a pass code, do agencies still search it without a warrant? Is that going to be the dividing line?

That's what I'm hoping for. I wonder if there's precedent involving a locked box in a purse or something like that.


There is precedent for a locked car trunk in some jurisdictions. Search the interior fine, trunk off limits without a warrant.
 
2013-08-05 11:39:44 AM

Sybarite: Sounds like the sort of thing J. Edgar Hoover would have creamed his bloomers over.


i.imgur.com

Don't you mean J. Edna Hoover?
 
2013-08-05 11:39:46 AM

SurfaceTension: I'm going to start off with saying that this justification for collection of metadata is NOT one that I agree with. However, I can see where an argument can be made for this view:

Your phone call is basically like sending a letter through the mail. It is absolutely illegal to open a letter and examine its contents, but if one wants to make the effort, they can examine the envelope of the letter and determine its source, its destination, whether its registered, the stamp that's affixed, how thick the envelope is, etc.

I'm wondering what people think about that?


I think it's pretty short-sighted:  A cell phone periodically reports your position.  It has to for the system to work properly:  Your cell provider needs to know what cell tower to route your calls through.  That is also part of the metadata that is collected.

Imagine if the post office knew where you were 24/7.  That's a more appropriate analogy.
 
2013-08-05 11:45:50 AM

dittybopper: Imagine if the post office knew where you were 24/7.  That's a more appropriate analogy.


It's also a more appropriate analogy if you imagine you were asking the post office to deliver your mail to you wherever you are, at any time day or night.
 
2013-08-05 11:48:58 AM
Nothing to see here, citizens

/move along... move along.
 
2013-08-05 11:53:20 AM

nmrsnr: dittybopper: Imagine if the post office knew where you were 24/7.  That's a more appropriate analogy.

It's also a more appropriate analogy if you imagine you were asking the post office to deliver your mail to you wherever you are, at any time day or night.


Well, you can change the physical address to where your mail is delivered. And you can change it as many times as you want. Isn't that somewhat analagous?
 
2013-08-05 11:57:39 AM

nmrsnr: dittybopper: Imagine if the post office knew where you were 24/7.  That's a more appropriate analogy.

It's also a more appropriate analogy if you imagine you were asking the post office to deliver your mail to you wherever you are, at any time day or night.


Granted.

But the point is that with the location metadata, I can build up the most scarily accurate profile of you.  I can tell where you live, where you work, who your friends and family are, where you like to shop, where  you like to eat, and all manner of other things.  I can tell if you have a lead foot, or even if you own a car, ride the bus, walk, or ride a bike*.  Based upon where you go, I can get a pretty accurate estimate of what you make.  I can tell where you go to church, if you do, and I can even tell which bars you like to frequent.   Based upon proximity to you, I can tell who your co-workers are, and your friends.  And I can build up relationship maps.  I bet I could even tell you, with a fair degree of accuracy, who is sleeping with who.

And I can tell all of that never having listened to the content of a single call, or seen the actual text of your text messages, tweets, or facebook postings.

There is almost no limit to the information I can gather just from the metadata of where you are and when you are there, combined with the metadata of who you call, when, and for how long.

*All of those things have a different "profile" based upon speed, location, how often they stop, etc.
 
2013-08-05 12:01:13 PM

SurfaceTension: nmrsnr: dittybopper: Imagine if the post office knew where you were 24/7.  That's a more appropriate analogy.

It's also a more appropriate analogy if you imagine you were asking the post office to deliver your mail to you wherever you are, at any time day or night.

Well, you can change the physical address to where your mail is delivered. And you can change it as many times as you want. Isn't that somewhat analagous?


See my post here:

http://www.fark.com/comments/7874788/85751370#c85751370
 
2013-08-05 12:22:40 PM
See? The NSA thing  is a real scandal, but since you all polluted the pool with conspiracy theories...
 
2013-08-05 12:29:01 PM

SurfaceTension: Sybarite: To make a fair comparison, it would be as though every single piece of mail processed by the postal system passed through a government building, before being delivered,

Not to quibble, but this actually happens.


If you mean the Postal Service, then no. It's not technically run by the government nor is it funded by taxpayers (1982 was the last year it accepted a public service subsidy).
 
2013-08-05 12:36:36 PM

dittybopper: But the point is that with the location metadata, I can build up the most scarily accurate profile of you.  I can tell where you live, where you work, who your friends and family are, where you like to shop, where  you like to eat, and all manner of other things.  I can tell if you have a lead foot, or even if you own a car, ride the bus, walk, or ride a bike*.  Based upon where you go, I can get a pretty accurate estimate of what you make.  I can tell where you go to church, if you do, and I can even tell which bars you like to frequent.   Based upon proximity to you, I can tell who your co-workers are, and your friends.  And I can build up relationship maps.  I bet I could even tell you, with a fair degree of accuracy, who is sleeping with who.


Yup, data mining is pretty awesome. I can also decide to turn my phone off, or leave it at home unless I absolutely need it. That's the crux of the "it's not a search" argument, all of that information is given voluntarily to a third party (the phone company) for the convenience of their service.
 
2013-08-05 12:44:07 PM
I'm going to just go ahead and assume I don't have any rights anymore.
 
2013-08-05 12:47:41 PM

nmrsnr: dittybopper: But the point is that with the location metadata, I can build up the most scarily accurate profile of you.  I can tell where you live, where you work, who your friends and family are, where you like to shop, where  you like to eat, and all manner of other things.  I can tell if you have a lead foot, or even if you own a car, ride the bus, walk, or ride a bike*.  Based upon where you go, I can get a pretty accurate estimate of what you make.  I can tell where you go to church, if you do, and I can even tell which bars you like to frequent.   Based upon proximity to you, I can tell who your co-workers are, and your friends.  And I can build up relationship maps.  I bet I could even tell you, with a fair degree of accuracy, who is sleeping with who.

Yup, data mining is pretty awesome. I can also decide to turn my phone off, or leave it at home unless I absolutely need it. That's the crux of the "it's not a search" argument, all of that information is given voluntarily to a third party (the phone company) for the convenience of their service.


I think the best way to explain this to moron legislators and tech stupid judges is to run a metadata analysis on them using about a months worth of data.

Then see if they like the results. If they don't like it, then maybe they'll do something about it.
 
2013-08-05 12:49:54 PM
Please remember that automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines are not new technology
 
2013-08-05 12:56:31 PM

SurfaceTension: I'm going to start off with saying that this justification for collection of metadata is NOT one that I agree with. However, I can see where an argument can be made for this view:

Your phone call is basically like sending a letter through the mail. It is absolutely illegal to open a letter and examine its contents, but if one wants to make the effort, they can examine the envelope of the letter and determine its source, its destination, whether its registered, the stamp that's affixed, how thick the envelope is, etc.

I'm wondering what people think about that?


Are they able to shake the boxes like we all did waiting for xmas?  Because I can see an interesting corallary if not.
 
2013-08-05 12:57:21 PM
The current supreme court will see nothing unconstitutional about this at all, 5-4
 
2013-08-05 12:59:28 PM
5-4 chance that SCOTUS will get Scalia'd.
 
2013-08-05 01:00:24 PM

Tom_Slick: I'm curious, if your phone has a pass code, do agencies still search it without a warrant? Is that going to be the dividing line?


I've seen that argument before. The court (a US court) ordered that without a warrant - a suspect could not be compelled to provide his password.

I can't remember any details beyond that...
 
2013-08-05 01:00:41 PM
Honestly, I don't see how cell phones can be considered any different then the existing laws on land lines.  Only possible exception is maybe the GPS features.
 
2013-08-05 01:02:32 PM
Like, you know.
 
2013-08-05 01:03:30 PM
The NSA is using a secret program to find out the evil that lies in my heart? Where I'm at? What I'm thinking? What I plan to do? This secret program involves my mobile phone? Is this secret program called Facebook?
 
2013-08-05 01:07:06 PM

Weaver95: I think the best way to explain this to moron legislators and tech stupid judges is to run a metadata analysis on them using about a months worth of data.

Then see if they like the results. If they don't like it, then maybe they'll do something about it.


Didn't someone do this to Scalia a couple of years ago? A group of college or law students? I'm on my phone so I can't search for it easily right now.
 
2013-08-05 01:11:12 PM

Sybarite: To make a fair comparison, it would be as though every single piece of mail processed by the postal system passed through a government building, before being delivered, wherein all of the information you mention was recorded and stored in perpetuity. Sounds like the sort of thing J. Edgar Hoover would have creamed his bloomers over.


Like the databases maintained by the US Post office?
 
2013-08-05 01:13:02 PM
In 30 - 40 years, a generation raised with ubiquitous social media will be in charge of our court system. I'm guessing their notion of privacy will be very different.

And Emperor Zuckerberg will have packed the High Council with sycophants to suppress the opposition.
 
2013-08-05 01:13:23 PM

SurfaceTension: Sybarite: To make a fair comparison, it would be as though every single piece of mail processed by the postal system passed through a government building, before being delivered,

Not to quibble, but this actually happens.

Sybarite: wherein all of the information you mention was recorded and stored in perpetuity.

This, not so much. At least not that we are aware.


Guess again.Every piece of mail is photographed

The postal service only keeps the images for a month. Want to bet on whether there's a hard drive just outside Bluffdale, Utah where those are kept around forever?
 
2013-08-05 01:13:27 PM

SurfaceTension:  It is absolutely illegal to open a letter and examine its contents, but if one wants to make the effort, they can examine the envelope of the letter and determine its source, its destination, whether its registered, the stamp that's affixed, how thick the envelope is, etc.

I'm wondering what people think about that?


It's called the Mail Isolation Control and Tracking program, it's been around since 2001, and it's suffering basically the same legal challenges as the phone monitoring programs are, that is to say a lot of people are very upset and the courts are essentially conspiring to deny them their right to petition for redress of grievances by making up bullshiat technicalities about standing (bullshiat because literally everyone using the USPS should realistically have standing to challenge this).

The fact that the people are being straight-out blocked from even having their day in court on this issue is one of the most creepily 1984 bits of the whole deal, frankly.
 
2013-08-05 01:16:04 PM
Well, as we all know from gun grabber nuts, the constitution and BoR were only meant apply to old timey events of the 1700s
 
2013-08-05 01:16:29 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: In 30 - 40 years, a generation raised with ubiquitous social media will be in charge of our court system. I'm guessing their notion of privacy will be very different.

And Emperor Zuckerberg will have packed the High Council with sycophants to suppress the opposition.


media.tumblr.com

FEAR SHALL KEEP THE POSTERS IN LINE. FEAR OF MY IMMENSE BANHAMMER.
 
2013-08-05 01:17:12 PM

SurfaceTension: I'm going to start off with saying that this justification for collection of metadata is NOT one that I agree with. However, I can see where an argument can be made for this view:

Your phone call is basically like sending a letter through the mail. It is absolutely illegal to open a letter and examine its contents, but if one wants to make the effort, they can examine the envelope of the letter and determine its source, its destination, whether its registered, the stamp that's affixed, how thick the envelope is, etc.

I'm wondering what people think about that?


Actually for a more accurate metaphor, your phone call is like sending a letter through the mail or FedEx or UPS.  And instead of just looking at the information that goes through USPS, the goverment makes FedEx and UPS document all of this and send the information to them.

Oh and there's no USPS, it's all private industry.  So not exactly the same thing.  But if the government wants to send agents to every UPS store and peer over everyone's shoulder taking notes on what they are doing, or if they want to cruise behind delivery trucks and get out to investigate packages left on peoples doorsteps for this information that's probably more okay because its in public view.
 
2013-08-05 01:21:23 PM

SurfaceTension: At least not that we are aware.


Yeah, that's the whole damn point.
 
2013-08-05 01:22:11 PM

Weaver95: I'm going to just go ahead and assume I don't have any rights anymore.


Where did you get the idea you're allowed to 'assume' anything, Citizen?
 
2013-08-05 01:23:38 PM

Bontesla: Tom_Slick: I'm curious, if your phone has a pass code, do agencies still search it without a warrant? Is that going to be the dividing line?

I've seen that argument before. The court (a US court) ordered that without a warrant - a suspect could not be compelled to provide his password.

I can't remember any details beyond that...



In all likelihood LEOs don't need your password.  All they need is your SIM card and that fancy little reader the NSA sold them.  Stored your data in the phones memory?  Oh, watch this then...(plugs it in)  Tah-dah!  all your data...

The only way to avoid that would be to have your very own OS on your phone so that you could encrypt EVERYTHING on the phone well below OS level.  Maybe there's already one out there.  Currently our government does their damnedest to make sure that you're not allowed to do that though.

Imagine how hard the government would work to make it so that you cannot have a phone that NEVER connects to anything without your explicitly telling it to do so and is fully encrypted.  It's already clear that turning the phone off is not a deterrent to being tracked as they can turn it back on remotely or just put it in surveillance mode so that it listens for them.  You'd have to pull the battery all the time, and some phones don't even have that option.
 
2013-08-05 01:25:00 PM
I find it hysterical that the same people who scream and whine about privacy freely give out their likes and dislikes, their political and religious affiliations, medical disorders, gender, address, phone #, inner most thoughts, relationship status, and current GPS location (FB "Check-in" feature anyone?) via social media all so that they can share with the world when they've eaten a pizza, and wiped their kids' butts.  But we need privacy, right?

Note to the people like this:  PRIVACY != ANONYMITY
 
2013-08-05 01:25:44 PM

Explodo: Bontesla: Tom_Slick: I'm curious, if your phone has a pass code, do agencies still search it without a warrant? Is that going to be the dividing line?

I've seen that argument before. The court (a US court) ordered that without a warrant - a suspect could not be compelled to provide his password.

I can't remember any details beyond that...


In all likelihood LEOs don't need your password.  All they need is your SIM card and that fancy little reader the NSA sold them.  Stored your data in the phones memory?  Oh, watch this then...(plugs it in)  Tah-dah!  all your data...

The only way to avoid that would be to have your very own OS on your phone so that you could encrypt EVERYTHING on the phone well below OS level.  Maybe there's already one out there.  Currently our government does their damnedest to make sure that you're not allowed to do that though.

Imagine how hard the government would work to make it so that you cannot have a phone that NEVER connects to anything without your explicitly telling it to do so and is fully encrypted.  It's already clear that turning the phone off is not a deterrent to being tracked as they can turn it back on remotely or just put it in surveillance mode so that it listens for them.  You'd have to pull the battery all the time, and some phones don't even have that option.


The question then becomes: can you be compelled to give up the encryption key?
 
2013-08-05 01:27:35 PM
It's almost as if this is the exact 'slippery slope' that people warned about when the patriot act was first passed...
 
2013-08-05 01:29:40 PM

qorkfiend: Explodo: Bontesla: Tom_Slick: I'm curious, if your phone has a pass code, do agencies still search it without a warrant? Is that going to be the dividing line?

I've seen that argument before. The court (a US court) ordered that without a warrant - a suspect could not be compelled to provide his password.

I can't remember any details beyond that...


In all likelihood LEOs don't need your password.  All they need is your SIM card and that fancy little reader the NSA sold them.  Stored your data in the phones memory?  Oh, watch this then...(plugs it in)  Tah-dah!  all your data...

The only way to avoid that would be to have your very own OS on your phone so that you could encrypt EVERYTHING on the phone well below OS level.  Maybe there's already one out there.  Currently our government does their damnedest to make sure that you're not allowed to do that though.

Imagine how hard the government would work to make it so that you cannot have a phone that NEVER connects to anything without your explicitly telling it to do so and is fully encrypted.  It's already clear that turning the phone off is not a deterrent to being tracked as they can turn it back on remotely or just put it in surveillance mode so that it listens for them.  You'd have to pull the battery all the time, and some phones don't even have that option.

The question then becomes: can you be compelled to give up the encryption key?


Yes, but only by court order.
 
2013-08-05 01:31:56 PM

Weaver95: I'm going to just go ahead and assume I don't have any rights anymore.


No one likes melodramatic hyperbole, Winston Smith.
 
2013-08-05 01:33:21 PM

hardinparamedic: FEAR SHALL KEEP THE POSTERS IN LINE. FEAR OF MY IMMENSE BANHAMMER.


SHHH!!  We're not supposed to talk about the banhammer!
 
2013-08-05 01:33:30 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: The current supreme court will see nothing unconstitutional about this at all, 5-4


Not necessarily.  Last year the court ruled on a case about whether attaching a GPS device to a car was considered a search (United States v. Jones).  They unanimously agreed that it was a search and it needed a warrant, but the interesting thing was how the opinions broke down.  Alito, at least, seems to be sympathetic to applying the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test to long term monitoring, so they'll probably put some restrictions on what the government can and cannot do.
 
2013-08-05 01:34:56 PM

Weaver95: I'm going to just go ahead and assume I don't have any rights anymore.


You have the right to remain silent; but Fark would miss you.
 
2013-08-05 01:36:38 PM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-08-05 01:37:55 PM
This particular court does not need to address this issue
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report