In Sweeping Ruling, Supreme Court Shields Privacy of Cellphones

[telemann.livejournal.com]

In a major statement on privacy rights in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that the police need warrants to search the cellphones of people they arrest.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, said the vast amount of data contained on modern cellphones must be protected from routine inspection.The court heard arguments in April in two cases on the issue, but issued a single decision.

The first case, Riley v. California, No. 13-132, arose from the arrest of David L. Riley, who was pulled over in San Diego in 2009 for having an expired auto registration. The police found loaded guns in his car and, on inspecting Mr. Riley’s smartphone, entries they associated with a street gang. A more comprehensive search of the phone led to information that linked Mr. Riley to a shooting. He was later convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. A California appeals court said neither search had required a warrant.

The second case, United States v. Wurie, No. 13-212, involved a search of the call log of the flip phone of Brima Wurie, who was arrested in 2007 in Boston and charged with gun and drug crimes. The federal appeals court in Boston last year threw out the evidence found on Mr. Wurie’s phone.

News organizations, including The New York Times, filed a brief supporting Mr. Riley and Mr. Wurie in which they argued that cellphone searches can compromise news gathering. The courts have long allowed warrantless searches in connection with arrests, saying they are justified by the need to protect police officers and to prevent the destruction of evidence. The Justice Department, in its Supreme Court briefs, said the old rule should apply to the new devices.

Others say there must be a different standard because of the sheer amount of data on and available through cellphones. “Today, many Americans store their most personal ‘papers’ and ‘effects’ in electronic format on a cellphone, carried on the person,” Judge Norman H. Stahl wrote for a divided three-judge panel in Mr. Wurie’s case, quoting the words of the Fourth Amendment.

More here at the New York Times.

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

But did Aereo come up with something
that makes it easy to get network TV on the Net,
such that the networks might take over the technology,
or is it easy enough for them to deal with Hulu and such?

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Maybe they pay Aereo for the patents, and everyone will end up happy.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

No they didn't. Their sole business model was a legal fiction suggesting that they were renting antenna's rather than rebroadcasting. The ability to transfer network TV on the net has been around for ages.


Also can you type like a normal person again?

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Also can you type like a normal person again?

I would be willing to consider that, if you can tell me the downside of my short lines. I think it's easier to read than to have to follow a line all the way across the computer screen - narrow columns instead of broad ones. I understand that it even makes for quicker reading. Plus, sometimes I like to give vent to a poetic spirit. Why does it bug you?

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

Because the line breaks disrupt the cadence of the writing. If i want to have shorter line size i can just resize my window. It is also harder to read.

Its fine if you want to be poetic, but it did not seem like it with that

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Looking upon this comment,
as an example,
is it better for being broken in clearer sense lines?,
rather than broken more randomly.

Or is this still harder to read for you?

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

Still harder to read for me

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I can certainly go the regular way when commenting to you, but I suppose you also mean my comments elsewhere, which is a little harder for me, as I sort of like the style, and I am not convinced that it is a truly problematic matter (such as, for instance, posting huge images that everyone has to scroll around). I'll keep debating the issue in my own mind, and maybe hear from what others have to say.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Not a big deal to me. When I first saw your comments in this style, I thought you were using a cell phone; and the carriage returns were from that.

I try to set my images to 600 pixels wide (that was because when LJ had specific style sheets, anything over 600 pixels tended to disrupt some friends LJ feeds, and I tend to like larger images over smaller ones, so it seemed at the time a happy medium.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

I don't think it makes for quicker reading, at all. In fact, I'm more likely to skip reading your comments - they cause me just enough irritation to think that it's not worth it.

You can call it a "poetic spirit," but to me it comes off like you're not a native English speaker or you have some kind of cognitive limitation.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Well, you are kind of a dangerous person to have reading my comments anyway, but as a minimum, when responding to you, I will be as the madding crowd.