7greeneyes
MedicalNLovingIt!
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 8,071
- Reaction score
- 789
http://www.geek.com/mobile/supreme-court-your-rights-dont-end-at-the-edge-of-a-touchscreen-1597791/
This week the federal Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a unanimous ruling with respect to two cases on the legality of warrantless searches of your electronic devices. The verdict? Its not allowed.
This isnt really an unexpected decision, as the rules governing police seizure of evidence are some of the most well-trodden constitutional grounds of all. Precedent on the need for warrants is clear, which is why the decision was unanimous. Any other ruling would have been, quite frankly, a distressing sign of incompetence or corruption in the court. Still, obvious or not, its worth pointing out what exactly this ruling means to you.
The actual decision paper is filled with great quotes that, while phrased well, are in essence just common-sense statements. In terms of sophistication, what we are seeing here is a belated nod to a truth most 13-year-olds find to be self evident: technology is now such a part of our lives that it must be treated like an extension of ourselves, in terms of legal protections. Seizure of information from a phone now requires a warrant it already did, in many cases, but now that reality has been chiseled into law by the highest court in the land.
There are too many good quotes to pull from the decision so Ill confine myself to this one, which sums the issue up quite well: The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Indeed, the more available information is, the more necessary its protections become. The need for a Fourth Amendment has never been clearer.
There are actually two constitutional amendments that are relevant here. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and its the main focus of this ruling. Basically, the Fourth says that a signed statement of probable cause (a warrant) must be produced before anyone can look at your stuff. Thats obviously applicable here, but the court identifies three big exceptions that have been set down in case history, all hinging on the fact that warrantless collection of evidence is allowed in the normal course of a lawful arrest.
Thats of course a pretty huge loophole in the law; who doesnt have their cell phone on them at all times? If just having your cell phone when police nab you is enough to justify unlimited access, you might as well not have these protections at all. Thats basically what the court itself said: a cell phone is such a fundamentally private and holistic look into a persons life that its contents is to an extent indistinguishable from the owners own thoughts. This point is made all the more powerful when you consider that its not just locally stored data thats at stake, but cloud storage as well. Any other ruling in this case would have granted incredible, far-reaching access to a persons life, literally under the guise of searching peoples pockets for weapons.
Remote-wiping of stored data is one legitimate concern on the part of law enforcement, and the court makes an interesting little point by referencing a case on blood testing a suspected drunk driver; the implication seems to be that even if destruction of evidence is possible (either by remotely formatting your phone or sobering up and lowering detectable blood alcohol levels) a warrant must still be produced for a search. Much like your blood is a fundamentally more private and insightful substance than your breath, your smartphone is more private and insightful than, say, a paper notebook in your other pocket.
It has been suggested in the past that a phone without any password protection might not be subject to these laws and so the Fifth Amendment becomes important. Basically, there is a continuing debate over whether you can be forced to cough up your passwords to beat your own encryption. Is it self-incrimination to give up a password that conceals incriminating information? Common sense would seem to say yes, but the legal rulings have been mixed. So far as Im aware, the issue isnt definitively closed.
This is the first in what will be a long line of major tech-related cases. They will range in topic from the Fourth Amendment to the Fifth to the First and beyond we havent even seen the start of the major reorientation in legal thinking were going need over the next twenty years. This case itself follows quick on the heels of another Supreme Court ruling, this one against the internets consensus opinion. The company rebroadcasting company Aereo must now cease and desist due to a new definition of copyright and many of the people most involved in this search and seizure case think thats the wrong decision.
The Supreme Court wont always agree with the populist answers on these issues, but in this case it has. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Supreme Court: Your rights dont end at the edge of a touchscreen
This week the federal Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a unanimous ruling with respect to two cases on the legality of warrantless searches of your electronic devices. The verdict? Its not allowed.
This isnt really an unexpected decision, as the rules governing police seizure of evidence are some of the most well-trodden constitutional grounds of all. Precedent on the need for warrants is clear, which is why the decision was unanimous. Any other ruling would have been, quite frankly, a distressing sign of incompetence or corruption in the court. Still, obvious or not, its worth pointing out what exactly this ruling means to you.
The actual decision paper is filled with great quotes that, while phrased well, are in essence just common-sense statements. In terms of sophistication, what we are seeing here is a belated nod to a truth most 13-year-olds find to be self evident: technology is now such a part of our lives that it must be treated like an extension of ourselves, in terms of legal protections. Seizure of information from a phone now requires a warrant it already did, in many cases, but now that reality has been chiseled into law by the highest court in the land.
There are too many good quotes to pull from the decision so Ill confine myself to this one, which sums the issue up quite well: The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought. Indeed, the more available information is, the more necessary its protections become. The need for a Fourth Amendment has never been clearer.
There are actually two constitutional amendments that are relevant here. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, and its the main focus of this ruling. Basically, the Fourth says that a signed statement of probable cause (a warrant) must be produced before anyone can look at your stuff. Thats obviously applicable here, but the court identifies three big exceptions that have been set down in case history, all hinging on the fact that warrantless collection of evidence is allowed in the normal course of a lawful arrest.
Thats of course a pretty huge loophole in the law; who doesnt have their cell phone on them at all times? If just having your cell phone when police nab you is enough to justify unlimited access, you might as well not have these protections at all. Thats basically what the court itself said: a cell phone is such a fundamentally private and holistic look into a persons life that its contents is to an extent indistinguishable from the owners own thoughts. This point is made all the more powerful when you consider that its not just locally stored data thats at stake, but cloud storage as well. Any other ruling in this case would have granted incredible, far-reaching access to a persons life, literally under the guise of searching peoples pockets for weapons.
Remote-wiping of stored data is one legitimate concern on the part of law enforcement, and the court makes an interesting little point by referencing a case on blood testing a suspected drunk driver; the implication seems to be that even if destruction of evidence is possible (either by remotely formatting your phone or sobering up and lowering detectable blood alcohol levels) a warrant must still be produced for a search. Much like your blood is a fundamentally more private and insightful substance than your breath, your smartphone is more private and insightful than, say, a paper notebook in your other pocket.
It has been suggested in the past that a phone without any password protection might not be subject to these laws and so the Fifth Amendment becomes important. Basically, there is a continuing debate over whether you can be forced to cough up your passwords to beat your own encryption. Is it self-incrimination to give up a password that conceals incriminating information? Common sense would seem to say yes, but the legal rulings have been mixed. So far as Im aware, the issue isnt definitively closed.
This is the first in what will be a long line of major tech-related cases. They will range in topic from the Fourth Amendment to the Fifth to the First and beyond we havent even seen the start of the major reorientation in legal thinking were going need over the next twenty years. This case itself follows quick on the heels of another Supreme Court ruling, this one against the internets consensus opinion. The company rebroadcasting company Aereo must now cease and desist due to a new definition of copyright and many of the people most involved in this search and seizure case think thats the wrong decision.
The Supreme Court wont always agree with the populist answers on these issues, but in this case it has. Enjoy it while it lasts.
