Story 2014-06-25 3PH Supreme Court limits cell phone searches

Supreme Court limits cell phone searches

by
in legal on (#3PH)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that law enforcement officers need to get a search warrant before they can search through the contents of someone's smartphone.
The term ‘cell phone’ is itself misleading shorthand; many of these devices are in fact minicomputers that also happen to have the capacity to be used as a telephone,” Roberts wrote. “They could just as easily be called cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.
Reply 7 comments

SCOTUS is old school (Score: 1, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-25 20:52 (#296)

cameras, video players, rolodexes, calendars, tape recorders, libraries, diaries, albums, televisions, maps, or newspapers.
I remember when we had those things. How nostalgic!

I was especially surprised to see that rolodexes are still being sold. I wonder who is buying them all?

Re: SCOTUS is old school (Score: 1)

by spacebar@pipedot.org on 2014-06-25 21:15 (#297)

I use a lot of rolodexes. A LOT. Specifically, all of them.

Re: SCOTUS is old school (Score: 1, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-25 21:52 (#298)

Duh, people who run out of room for addresses in their Filofax.

Very good news (Score: 4, Insightful)

by chebucto@pipedot.org on 2014-06-26 13:06 (#29A)

Especially good parts of this story are
- It was unanimous
- Roberts specifically addressed the fact that this ruling will make police work more difficult, and concluded that 'privacy has a cost'
- They clearly state that modern 'cell phones' are worthy of such protection not because of the type of data on them, but the amount of data on them; that is, while police are able to search wallets, and cell phones contain similar data, the fact that cell phones contain so much more data, and data of such varied types, makes them worthy of protection

A common complaint of the courts is that they don't 'get' technology; this shows to me that the Supereme Court does 'get' the privacy implications of modern data-holding technology.

Re: Very good news (Score: 1)

by fnj@pipedot.org on 2014-06-26 13:23 (#29D)

Agreed 100%, and I couldn't put it better.

What I really, really like is that this decision cuts through the liberal/conservative, left/right divide decisively. It is a false divide, anyway. It is not what matters. The divide that matters is the totalitarian/libertarian one. I am pleased and surprised that the court decision is so decisively on the right^W, er, correct side.

Re: Very good news (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-26 19:27 (#29G)

They DON'T get technology. At all. But apparently a majority (okay all) of the supremes have taken a liking for their own smartphones and realized that their bathroom "selfies" might be embarrassing at border crossings.

If they understood technology and the law then Aereo would still be in business.

Laptops (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-06-26 13:29 (#29E)

TV show tonight had the US border security woman reading a guy's emails from his laptop while accusing him of lying.All in all a serious wtf