![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
telemann.livejournal.com
On Friday morning, a CNBC segment of “Squawk on the Street” turned awkward after co-anchor Simon Hobbs accidentally “ outed” Apple (AAPL +1.18%) CEO Tim Cook as being openly gay. “I think Tim Cook is fairly open about the fact that he’s gay at the head of Apple isn’t he?” asked Hobbs to columnist Jim Stewart. During the segment, The New York Times journalist was discussing his upcoming column on John Browne, the former CEO of oil giant BP whose book, The Glass Closet: Why Coming Out Is Good For Business, details his life as a closeted executive. “No,” Stewart answered after an awkward silence. “I don’t want to comment on anybody who might or might not be,” he added. “I’m not going to out anybody. I called a lot of people and no one at any major company would allow their names to be used.” Cook has never confirmed nor denied his sexual orientation.
More here, with video of the segment.
I think it's one thing to out a closeted politician who is consistently hurting people in their day-to-day lives by the legislation they're advocating and enacting into law (Charlie Crist was horrible in that regard in Florida, when he was governor). But I'm not sure about businessmen or executives. If their company's business policies are fair, sane, and not hurting anyone, I think outing them is unfair and a breach of their privacy.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}