Slashdot Mirror
The iPhone Meets the Fourth Amendment
background image writes "According to Alan M Gershowitz, the doctrine of "search incident to arrest" may allow devices such as mobile phones, PDAs and laptops to be thoroughly searched without either probable cause or warrants [PDF download below abstract]. Incriminating evidence found in such searches may be used against you whether or not it is germane to the reason for the original arrest. He notes, 'Obviously, the framers of the Fourth Amendment could not have conceived of a handheld technological device like the iPhone, and courts have not yet been called upon to answer most of the difficult questions posed by such devices.' We've discussed similar search issues recently, as well as other privacy concerns related to modern technology.
They are papers and/or personal effects, and should be treated accordingly under the law. How hard can that be to understand?
Well, can the police read, say, my notebook, kept in my backpack in the car? Can they look at my wallet full of business cards and contacts? What if these papers and information are protected by attorney or medical privilege? What if these are my (HIPAA-protected) health records? These seem to be the closest analogues to what's on my iPhone, apart from the actual phone itself.
Lock your phone people and then provide the code when a warrant is given. Nothing is in plain view and therefore not subject to search without *consent* or *warrant*.
http://truecrypt.org/ and similar tools may be of use. Not only can you protect an arbitrary volume with tc, you can hide another container inside it in a truly undetectable way.
Security on the iPhone is SO bad, you may as well just give up all your privacy anyway.
It can be turned into a microphone which records everything said about it, someone can look at all your contacts and information, and good luck if you store any financial info on it, or have visited a banking website. You'd just be screwed.
But hey, when you have to whip something in in four weeks for a pointy-haired boss, that kind of stuff happens.
If you want anything secure, put it in a high capacity memory stick or SD card. keep them seperate. they can look over the laptop all they want they will not find anything I don't want them to find.
Come on people, Hackers, spies, political dissidents, and those persecuted by their government have had to do this all their lives. Now all US citizens have to do the same.
it's the price we pay for being safe from T E R R O R I S M .
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I think they made a spelling error. It's Alan M. Dershowitz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz
Keep the faith, share the code
Gawd, some of this sounds like a plug for the iPhone: "The iPhone drastically changes this situation for two reasons. First, the iPhone stores tremendously more information thereby providing law enforcement with access to information that the typical arrestee would never carry in his pocket. In addition to the text messages, contacts, and call histories found on conventional phones, iPhones also contain an iPhoto function that holds far more pictures than could be stored on a conventional cell phone and displays them in much clearer detail. The iPhone also contains an easily accessible email application making it simple to access thousands of new, saved, and sent email messages. The iPhone permits users to store thousands of audio and video files. Music, books, and videos ranging from Beethoven to potentially obscene pornographic videos can be accessed with the touch of a few buttons. Second, and perhaps more important than the data stored under these functions is that the iPhone provides a mechanism for accessing information not presently stored on the phone. The iPhone contains an internet browser just like the one found on a standard computer. Thus, it can "dial out" and retrieve information not presently stored within the confines of the device." The title is (kind of) misleading - there's nothing legally specific to the iPhone that renders it subject to these laws (any mobile phone/PDA phone would potentially be under the same scrutiny). The author of TFA does, however, deal solely with the iPhone.
This same article could've been written about Blackberries 5 years ago, or Palm Pilots 10 years ago, or laptops 20 years ago, or personal calendars 100 years ago. They just used iPhone to grab attention, which pretty much instantly lowers their credibility.
The founders couldn't have conceived of a pocket sized device that can store arbitrary information?
WTF? Have you been smoking the meth again?
There is NOTHING radical about the difference between a pocket sized notebook (little black book) and an iphone.
So it can record your voice instead of having to use a pen or pencil and writing information down.
Whatever. Nobody believes US law has anything to do with the constitution any more anyway.
I miss the days when privacy meant something.
"He notes, 'Obviously, the framers of the Fourth Amendment could not have conceived of a handheld technological device like the iPhone..."
What part of that makes it acceptable to completely and utterly violate somebody's privacy like that? Last time I checked you don't search anything be it an iPhone or a school locker unless you suspect something illegal is involved. I don't have an iPhone but this is all the more reason I'm not getting one.
That is one organized crack dealer who is scheduling his shipments via his iPhone. Last time I bought crack, I didn't even get a customer service number, let alone online tracking. My how things have changed.
One Token Ring to Rule them All, One Search Engine to Find Them, One WAN to bring them in, and TCP/IP Bind them...
device, not just an iPhone. any mp3 player, any cell phone, any PDA, any laptop.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects , against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I think they missed that part, it's not convenient. Really all this garbage that we call law anymore is pissing me off.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
So the noun iPhone is now being used to refer to any cellphone, pda or other hybrid mobile device? Steve Jobs has already won.
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
IANAL, but I am a law student and this claim rather inflammatory. If you read the link for "search incident to arrest" in the summary, you'll see the trend of the Supreme Court's cases has been to narrow the scope of permissible search under this doctrine. Basically, it stems from the very practical consideration that when arresting someone, officers need to secure the immediate area and they might discover evidence either on the defendant's person or in plain sight.
Yes, the iphone and laptops increase the amount of information a person is likely to have on her, but it's not a new issue. As a couple of posters have pointed out, the same problem arises when the arrestee is carrying a notebook or briefcase with documents. Given the Supreme Court's narrow cases on this doctrine, it seems unlikely that they're going to allow admission of the embezzlement evidence the police found on your iphone when they arrested you for drunk driving.
Better encrypt that SD card too, as if they find it during the search its a simple matter of reading what is on there.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Let's see. Somebody speculates on how the fourth amendment may be applied to electronic gadgets. The blurb panics about "without a warrant and without probable cause" (and ignores the fact that there is long-standing precedent for certain searches without warrant and without probable cause, which even TFA probably point out---I'm not going to read it; it's hardly news). A bunch of people who have probably never even read the Constitution, much less taken a course on constitutional criminal procedure spout flames and blame Bush for this erosion of their God-given right---guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence---to have a porn-filled iPod. Yup, looks like I'm in the right place.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
There's a lot of discussion about stuff like this, but it's meaningless. The fact of the matter is, until the law or the courts say otherwise, your data is protected under the fourth amendment. Oh sure, law enforcement _wants_ to be able to search your data without a warrant, but they also would like to search your house and your car and just about anything else without a warrant too.
For now, there _is_ an expectation of privacy for your data, and until a law says otherwise you can expect that the results of a warrantless search to be thrown out. And if they aren't, you can appeal it up to the supreme court, at which point _they'll_ thrown them out. Period. There is no argument that can be made, even to people that don't understand computers, that makes computers any different than (paper) notebooks. Hell, there are even laws against computer trespassing. That law all but explicitly says that computers have an expectation of privacy.
Finally, here's the other thing to keep in mind: How are they getting you iPhone/laptop anyway. Even if there's no expectation of privacy for the data, there is (usually) for where it's physically sitting. It's not like a cop can walk up to your house and say: "Hi, I'm here to search you computers without a warrant". If they did, you don't have to let them in.
IANAL, but I believe that the intention of allowing searches incident to arrest is to prevent the suspect from accessing a weapon or destroying evidence. Since you cannot store a mac-10 in your iphone, this should be ruled out. So, the only logical time when an iphone or similar device can be searched is if the arrest is for a crime that can be linked to some sort of electronic device; child pornography, harassment, voyeurism, etc. If I am being arrested for starting a fight in a bar, there is no reason to go through my digital property, right?
It might be worth pointing out that, while the iPhone may be searched, it's not just a random 'I think I'll look through that guy's pockets' type search (not ostensibly anyway), but only an incident to arrest (if I remember the term correctly, though I'm from the UK not the US...). So, how I understand it, if a person is arrested for anything from solicitation, drug dealing or having a faulty brake-light, items in their possession may be searched by the police.
I guess the easiest way, in principle, would be to avoid arrest in the first place. Of course as legislation increases that, in itself, becomes more problematic. Whether or not I agree with the rights of the police to randomly search property following an arrest, particularly for evidence unrelated to the original arrest (I don't) is moot; but I thought it'd be worth pointing out.
It's also been discussed on Techdirt recently.
Americans have consistently traded freedom for security (and nowdays, convenience). In America, laws make YOU!
THL phish sticks
Boo!
GW is trying to scare you.
Just put a sticker that says "Do not read" on the cover of your phone. Then if the cops access your information they've circumvented your DRM and violated the DMCA!
If they think they "may contain evidence that you can destroy" and they have arrested you, it looks like the Supreme Court has ruled yes.
I imagine you would inform them of that when you discover they intend to read/confiscate it. And then it is completely inadmissable in court. And they could not look.
(As a corallary, I bet it is illegal to lie about that to an officer in this context.)
I'd imagine those would be treated the same as medical privlidged papers.
IANAL, but I did read the article linked to in the summary on searches incident to arrest.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
it's the price we pay for being safe from T E R R O R I S M .
When you type terrorism all freaky and forboding like that, it makes me want to vote for bush. He's not even running. wth?
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
The iPhone on my hip most certainly counts as part of my personal effects. You cannot seize or search it except upon a legal warrant issued upon probable cause. Ditto for my thumbdrive, camera, flash cards, etc.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
This is search incident to *arrest* not search incident to a lawful stop. You got arrested and are going to jail. Of course police can search your things. Gershowitz is arguing that perhaps the rule should be changed for items that have the possibility to contain a lot of information probably not related to the reason for your arrest. But it should not be much of a surprise that you are going to get searched, and pretty thoroughly, when you get arrested.
So then what do you do about the logs on your machine that show you opening, editing, or otherwise using these private files? What if your data is stored on a disk cache or in a swap file at some point during its use?
That's Alan M. Dershowitz.
The author of the paper is one Adam M. Gershowitz. Not Alan as stated in the summary.
(Nor is it Adam Horovitz the Beastie Boy.)
iPhone: [walking down the street] Doo do doo... nice night for a stroll, listenin' to some tunes...
4th Ammendment: [walking other way] Hello there, citizen!
iPhone: Oh hi! Who are you? Haven't seen you around here much.
4th: I'm the 4th Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution! I guarantee your right to be free from searches without a court-issued warrant.
iPhone: Ah, that's neat. I don't pay much attention to that politics stuff...
4th: Yeah, I know it's tough, that's why I'm out on the streets, trying to remind people of their civil liber-
[Suddenly NSA and DoJ leap out from an alley and attack 4th]
NSA: Rar!
DoJ: C'mere, bitch!
4th: Aaaaaaah!
iPhone: Dude! What the fuck?!
4th: Oh god, oh god! They're raping me! They're raping me right here on the street!
iPhone: Oh shit! Dude do you need help? [stepping forward] Cut it out you assholes!
NSA: [pulls out a switchblade]
DoJ: Back off, fucker, if you don't want to be next!
4th: Please help me! Please- Ah not there!
iPhone: Whoa dudes... Chill, seriously...
4th: [incoherent screaming]
iPhone: [backing away] Ah, yeah... I gotta go... check out the sale at Whole Foods or something... [starts running]
NSA: [shouting at iPhone] You didn't see shit!
4th: [moaning and sobbing]
[fin]
The enemies of Democracy are
Isn't probably cause or a warrant required before you are arrested in the first place?
http://outcampaign.org/
That point (an unproveable assertion, BTW) is totally irrelevant. The technology doesn't change our rights. We have the right to be secure in our papers and personal effects. That is obviously perfectly equivalent to records stored in the iPod. It might take a judge distracted by some arguing lawyers a few hours to decide that records stored elsewhere but accessed directly by the iPod are equivalent to the same old papers and effects, but it's an obvious conclusion.
The only relevant question is whether a cop stopping you for speeding or running a red light has probable cause to search your papers and personal effects for anything else. Which they obviously don't, especially since they've already got all the evidence of the moving violation crime they're accusing you of, and your preexisting papers could contain evidence of that only if they are accusing you of premeditated moving violations, which I think isn't even a legal charge.
The people who formulated and signed the Constitution were smart. So smart they didn't have to be able to conceive an iPhone. All they had to conceive was identifying our rights, and directing our government to protect them. And, along the couple centuries since then, we've updated their list of identified rights and required protections at least 17 more times. But none of those updates are because some gizmo appeared, even when some - like telegraphs, cars, airplanes, computers - transformed our society. Because we the people are still the same, with the same rights.
The rest of this crap is just an excuse for lawyers to make money and power brokers to steal more power from the people.
--
make install -not war
It is crystal clear that searches incident on arrest are common, and encompass pretty much everything within the car or on the person arrested. The question the author asks is that considering how much personal life is carried on an iPhone (which is used as a generic term for a gadget that does phone, text messages, email, webbrowser, pictures, voice, movies, calendar and more), does this type of search constitute an unreasonable search of personal property? He doesn't have an answer, but he proposes a couple of options, none of which are very fun.
My question though is: what if your phone is locked? The only reference in the pdf is about a state case that ruled that locked glove boxes can not be part of this type of search. On the other hand, federal law seems to force people to open up locked items as well.....
This entire discussion could be rendered moot by the simple act of locking your device. I'm hoping that locked devices will not become part of these types of searches, but I'm not convinced.... Especially with the entire problem "there be terrorists!", we could see laws similar to Great Britain's where you are forced to hand over passwords.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Agreed.
I'm pretty sure this would qualify as "effects" It's defined as personal property. It's not like an unnamed OS where you're just leasing it.
"Teach a man to build a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life."
that's wierd. Linux does not keep these logs.
do people actually use operating systems that spy on them and keep tracks?
Side note, anyone with 1/52nd a brain knows to use a "portable" version of an app that leaves no trails on the hugely insecure Windows operating systems.
I guess you dont know that do you.
That's what I'd like to know. If my phone is locked do I have to unlock it for them (certainly it can't contain contraband or weapons). Also, and maybe this is thinking of it in wrong terms, at what point is data stored elsewhere considered to be "on the phone" in the terms of email viewed through a web portal and not stored directly on the phone.
Can they search my phone if I'm not driving and I don't own the car? I've always assumed they could (and would) go through my phone if it were in their possession and the device is out of sight. I'm also interested to know how it should be handled if a medical/legal professional is arrested and the police want to start digging through emails and txts. Like, where does their search end and attorney/client privilege begin?
Now we just wait for the RIAA to start "suggesting" unprovoked searches of people who appear to be enjoying music too much. How long before the RIAA starts creating blue tooth viruses that seek out your iTunes library.
for (i=0;i500) { call_police(this.GPSLocation(),badUsersInRange.iPhoneMacAddress);}
Next time I go to the US... OK, put me on your sh* list ..... after all probably I do not want to really go anymore. But if I do,
probably I just take a hmmm. Calculator? Analogue watch?
I am sorry, but I know people who got their PDA searched, and interrogated at the border. I know people who were asked to log-in and show their contact list on their laptop computer.
I am sorry, but I do not feel like entering the US anymore with any electronic device, because I know they have the right to search, confiscate, burn and destroy anything I carry without a warrant, without asking.
I am a legit geek, and I want my laptop and phone with me on a 1. holiday, 2. business trip to anywhere. Coming from there, even being 100 percent legit I just do not want to enter the US, because I do not want to explain my contacts in my phone book, and do not want to lose my laptop, tablet, or whatever else.
What's next? My GPS? And if I have a waypoint in the middle east or south america I am a terrosirs, bomb maker, or communist suspect?
I was thinking a dive trip to Miami, but if they anal-probe my pda I better just choose something else....
I think I just let my visa expire, and maybe renew it when the US returns to its common sense. You think I am rebelling alone? Most people I know would pahy a couple extra hundred $ to go an other route to make sure they do not lose a laptop or PDA while entering the US. And they are not criminals, just IT people. Hell, the US is killing itself slowly but surely.
Now we just wait for the RIAA to start "suggesting" unprovoked searches of people who appear to be enjoying music too much. How long before the RIAA starts creating blue tooth viruses that seek out your iTunes library.
for (i=0;i<badUsersInRange.length;i++)
if (badUsersInRange[i].songlist.length>500) { call_police(this.GPSLocation(),badUsersInRange.iPhoneMacAddress);}
if anyone gets arrested for anything significant while you are sitting in jail the cops are going to get a warrant and search your home (warrant or not) and pick thru everything with a fine toothed comb, address books (both pulp and on the PC), computers, even between the sheets & mattresses, in your underwear drawer (everywhere) if you can hide it they will most likely find it unless you are really really clever...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
So if I were to use Portable Firefox (which I do occasionally), then I should expect the cache, cookies, history, and other private data to be stored on my personal device instead of some temp folder on the system? It certainly doesn't seem that my external device is being read very much after Portable Firefox launches, so I would assume that the temporary files are on the system. Sure they're deleted after the program exits, but if that system were to be seized by law enforcement, it would most surely be sent to a forensics lab that could easily uncover this data.
"No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
the Bill of Rights is (apparently) totally utterly meaningless to the current US government
handheld, privacy, ifascism, ipr0n, and jews? Am I missing something?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Why exactly is there a "jews" tag attached to this post? Gershowitz is probably Jewish, but that doesn't seem to be the point of the article. Futrhermore, IANAL, and I have yet to read this article, but given what I learned in crim pro it seems highly unlikely the police could search your iphone as part of a simple search incident to an arrest without cause to believe your iphone was used to commit a crime.
The key word here is "unreasonable." When you're talking about searches and seizures, the legal precedent has long been that when an officer of the law is already making an arrest, searching and seizing effects is no longer "unreasonable" because it is incident to arrest. However, that still doesn't give the officer a free pass to gather and examine whatever he wants from the party being arrested. The intensity of the searching has to be commensurate with the threat the officer is acting to mitigate.
If you yell into your iPhone, "Yeah, I'll kill him, boss," turn around and shoot someone, a cop who witnesses the event wouldn't need a search warrant to take a look at your iPhone to see who you were just talking to. A plain reading reveals that the requirement that a warrant requires probable cause plus an oath or affirmation comes after the broad initial statement. It was put in place to keep the government from arbitrarily issuing warrants to search homes and persons. A search of an arrested person's effects is not inherently arbitrary or unreasonable if it stems from a probable cause.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Except for the fact they are one of many many many many devices in the category of devices described by the article.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Ok, I was thinking of a person carrying around a folder full of papers, but it's the same thing. A police officer can't demand to rifle through your folder full of papers or little black book just because they think something's in there. Well, they can, but you can refuse and there's nothing (legal) they can do about it. If they have a really good reason for rifling through the folder/black book, they can get a search warrant from a judge. The same should be true of an iPhone.
In fact, I think that's already the case. The police investigating that zoo tiger attack had the victims' cars and cell phones and thought they might have evidence as to what happened. However, they couldn't just open the phones up and look in them because that evidence would be inadmissible in court. So they were forced to ask the courts to continue to hold them while they try to get a warrant.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
So, if the phone is locked and you keep your right to remain silent...?
I'm guessing they're just out of luck, but IANAL and the 4th amendment is one of the most complex.
true with the rest of the world, too. Yes, America is trading most freedoms for some small amount of "security", but a large part of the rest of the world has, too. Examples include the cameras in public places in Europe, the "gun free" zones that cover entire countries, and even not fighting against invasive governments such as communists who ask you to turn in other people who may not like the powers that be. Yes, America is falling, but a large part of the civilized world has already fallen to those in power. We're just behind the times.
It's a sad day when a Slashdot summary on Fourth Amendment issues apparently requires a gratuitous reference to the iPhone in the headline just to catch our attention.
SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
Make the password for decrypting something easy, like "Go fuck yourself", "I fucked your momma - twice", or "You can have my password when you pry it from my cold dead hands". They'll figure you're being obstinate, when you're in fact cooperating completely. You can even truthfully answer "you already know all I know when it comes to that computer's password." You'll most likely even pass a polygraph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox_-_Portable_Edition
try learning about software you use. Large amounts of the stuff out there work against you. Portable FF is not one of those.
Ihavetherighttoraminsilent
Just like hoover == vacuum cleaner, the iphone is probably also set for stardom.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The paper's author is Adam M. Gershowitz, not Alan. And he's not to be confused with Alan M. Dershowitz, of Reversal of Fortune fame.
It's not spying, it's convenience. Since most people who use a computer aren't hiding sensitive data, and are trying to get things done efficiently, having a "Recent Files" menu or a "History" is generally considered to be a good thing. If you are paranoid about security, you take care of it by using software and practices that don't leave a trace.
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
I've been meaning to order one of these suckers. Shamelessly ripped from thinkgeek's page:
Their thumb drives hold up to 4 Gigabytes of data, but includes a hardware encryption chip that scrambles the data so as to be completely unreadable without a password.Passwords can be hacked, but not the IronKey. It's built to withstand attacks both virtual and physical. 10 incorrect password attempts, and the encryption chip self-destructs, making the contents of the flash drive totally unreadable. The contents of the drive are filled with epoxy, so if a hacker tries to physically access the chips, he'd more likely damage them instead. Even if he did get access to the memory chips, they'd be worthless without the encryption chip. Electron-shielded, even a scanning electron microscope can't get inside.
A notebook is not networked into your entire life history like GMail and every other web service is. The average person is not capable of carrying that much paper, so the issue has not been addressed. Clearly, an arrest does not give the police the right to search your house and business to find and copy the dead tree equivalent. Digital fishing expeditions are an evil that must be legislated against but that is exactly what these bozo are defending.
The lesson learned here is that you should only use software you trust to keep your secrets on mobile devices. Treat it like your worst enemy would find it. Don't ever auto store passwords and protect it all with a login. Oppie and GPE might be OK. ATT and iPhone are not because you can't trust either. Even after people understand the issue and make reasonable laws you want to make it hard for people to copy your life.
Is that what he actually said is that some people claim that the 2nd amendment isn't an individual right. This isn't just fringe people either, it is a big contingent of anti-gun groups. Even the ACLU notes they believe it is a right of the states, not the people per se.
Well there is some justification in pointing out the similarities between this and restrictions that this administration has tried on the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments. After all, if it is ok to reinterpret the 2nd as being a collective right, then why not the others? What makes that one amendment different?
The grandparent isn't arguing that point of view, as far as I can tell, just pointing out that it does exist and that there are similarities to this.
IANAL, but...
/going to bed
In order to search private property, LAW has to make an arrest, attempt to arrest AND/OR believe a crime is being committed to justify probable cause (has to be substantial). A 'gut' feeling will not hold up in court. LAW has to have a valid reason LAW support reason or they leave themselves open to civil prosecution and media attention. Remember, the burden of proof lies on the LAW.
Some examples.
Valid Case ( this is legally with in the limits of the LAW )
college student(kidA) is on college network, has mp3s from one of his/hers legally owned cds on his computer (fair play). But the mp3s are in a popular P2P sharing applications share folder. A person (snoopA) who represents the RIAA downloads this file. SnoopA captures the file, the IP, the tracer information and passes it to the RIAA lawyer team, who then contacts the ISP AND the LAW. The data provide to the LAW is enough of probable cause to search, seize AND/OR arrest.
Invalid Case ( this would put the LAW in a position for civil prosecution )
college student(kidA) is listening to mp3's on his/hers laptop using a popular mp3 player, a LAW walks by and sees the screen of the laptop and notices the mp3 player software. The LAW has probable cause that the mp3s 'could' possible be illegal (not fair play as the kidA can not provide the CD on demand). The LAW attempts to seize and search for more evidence of incrimination, without first seeking counsel advice and a warrent from a judge.
So the country has evolved from the hanging participle to the hanging chad?
Can't stand when the tech-item-of-the-moment is specifically mentioned to drive a story or headline. So lame.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
The easy solution is to become a terrorist. Then the FBI will staunchly stand up for your fourth amendment rights and avoid searching your computer even if you are a suspicious non-citizen with an expired visa.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
This is slashdot, not digg. There should be no need to put popular keywords that aren't specific to the topic just to get the sheep to give you diggs.
Iphone releases new firmware and an article that discusses the firmware is iPhone specific, iPhone should be in the title. iPhone meets forth amendment when the article is solely discussing technical devices related to the forth amendment is not iPhone specific and the title should not have iPhone in it.
We had the generation that did not care followed by the generation that only cares to draw attention through misleading fronts. I think infomercials are hurting our youth more than GTA is. Jack, make some phone calls, you may have a second chance!
there is a lock function, use it.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Hans? Is that you having remorse ?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
I do not understand how evidence cannot be used in the US, it is wrong.
I a society of justice, evicence is evidence, and law must be followed. If the evidence is aquired in some illegal way, that that must be punished, but the evidence is still there, and justice must happen.
In the US, it is more important to make sure thar criminals can go away freely, no matter howmuch evidence there is.
They shouldn't be allowed to make full bit by bit copies of drives, disassemble devices to access drives, and/or install or boot their own software on a device. That would limit them to conducting searches for evidence that won't require exact copies of data or special software. That may allow something like looking at a call log or a phone book, but exclude imaging your laptop hard drive and searching it for documents, key words, or pictures. And this shouldn't be a problem, because if they have you arrested and have the device, they can get a warrant to copy it if they really need to for their investigation.
Why was the iPhone specifically mentioned here? Every phone has data on it; even the Nokia 3310 many people still use can take notes. Does the word 'iPhone' suddenly mean 'mobile phone'? I think not!
I've had it up to here with the freaking iPhone.
-- Cheers!
The founders did not have to conceive of all the ways our persons, houses, effects and "papers" could manifest in the future for the prohibition against arbitrary search and seizure to extend to all such manifestations. Anyone who says differently is an un-American scoundrel who never understood one iota of this country is supposed to be about. Computers are extension of our minds. Perusing our computers without our consent and without warrant is nothing less than mind rape. We The People must treat it that way if we are to have a chance of remaining free.
I can't believe no-one has brought up the point that your iPhone doesn't really have any data.
Using this line of reasoning they could perhaps look through contacts or your song list. But the really juicy stuff would be in email, and the iPhone is only a window to your server - so any access of email from the device would seem not to be covered.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ezekiel 23:20
Is that why I got arrested every time I put a new homemade live music show video on my ipod or handheld? The cops couldn't wait to get at it... sorry guys I try not to film the crowd.
If we are making the argument that a PDA, or any other digital storage device is like a suitcase and its data can be searched, then it begs the question:
Has your PDA been in your possession the whole time?
With OTA, Bluetooth hacks, security exploits, etc. how can one ever be truly responsible for all the data on the PDA? It's not just like a suitcase. A suitcase you visibly confirm every single item you put in it. A PDA, Laptop or any other similar device is simply to vast to ever consciously be aware of its contents. Also unlike a suitcase, a PDA depends on an interface to inspect the contents. So it may not be possible to even inspect the whole "container" and the veracity of any statements made about the data is only as good the reputation and proper functioning of the interface.
I am not deliberately attempting to be obtuse and over complicate the situation, and I am sure one might be reasonably certain that specific pieces of data were indeed placed by the owner, but is not reasonable doubt an important legal concept?
Other than copyright infringement, which possession of infringing data is a CIVIL matter, data can harm NOBODY. Its inert. It exists solely in the newly created cyberspace dimension. Its physical counterpart in our 3-dimensional space is collections of chemicals, compounds, etc. I am sure there is a more elegant way of representing this relationship with scientific terms, but I would say that data only exists as a dimension that is interpreted from the other 3. Data flows in this dimension from one "area" to another. There are certainly laws governing its behavior since programs are data, and they could be seen as data affecting other data. Much like pouring water on the top of a pyramid, it will flow down around it.
I know some might one to ask just what I have been smoking and how much I have smoked, but since cyberspace clearly exists and it affects our 3-dimensional world, we should start examining its nature and its relationships. Actions in our 3-dimensional world influence cyberspace, and cyberspace can influence our 3-dimensional world. These laws are a good example of that.
That being said, I find it interesting that we are now constructing laws regarding the contents of this other dimension and discussing just what rights we have to privacy. Especially when privacy is a hard thing to come by in this new dimension and much harder to verify that it even exists. Also, since it is hard to wrap our minds around this new dimension, it is also hard to understand how distinct entities operate in it. Only the very sophisticated can peer into this dimension and forensically determine with any accuracy just what is what and who put it there.
It will be very interesting the day that we catch a member of law enforcement remotely planting incriminating data on somebody to obtain a conviction or leverage to conduct a deeper investigation.
So holding people accountable for data on their PDA's, Laptops is a little presumptive. Where is the forensic equivalent? How do we know that is absolutely their data? What about data that is under the control of 3rd parties and held in different areas of cyberspace like Facebook, MySpace, GMail, etc? Just who is certified to make these claims? Data is rarely in the hands of one person, and their containers rarely contain data 100% created the owner, or 100% in control of the owner.
Furthermore, Data is again INERT. One can only ACT upon data, the data is in of itself not an action. So you cannot be punished for what you might possibly do with data, only possession of the data itself. That is why there is a distinction between DUI, having alcohol in the car, and having an open beverage.
So just what data is in of itself a crime to possess? I cannot think of any. Data can only indicate past crimes, and that data is in fact quite rare. I doubt any PDA's actually contain any data that could lead to convictions in the first place.
I find it troubling that law enforcement
catchy misleading headline, as always.
Your post earlier takes his logic, and applies it as a slippery slope to an entirely unrelated discussion, attempting to show how his logic is absurd. That is an implicit disagreement with his position.
Furthermore, since you have merely disagreed with him without clarifying your position, ANYTHING he argues would be a straw man. No real arguement exists for him to counter!
Finally, he is correct in his assertion that, with the extreme example of nuclear weapons, there clearly exists a limit to the citizenry's right to bear arms. The arguement is now where do we draw that line.
In the future, contribute something coherant to the conversation, or go fuck yourself.
If i'm reading this correctly (regarding your Bill of Rights and this proposed infraction on your privacy), then the obvious solution would be to store your iPhone in a paper journal in your bag. Cut out enough pages to store the iPhone within the bindings, but leave enough paper left to make meaningful notes (in case they get REALLY bold and decide to open your personal papers, which I believe they need a warrant for). Can't open the journal without a warrant, can't get to the phone. Asking you to remove it would be asking you to open your notes and personal files. Same for a laptop. Store it in a large envelope along with some papers and address it to yourself. If they stop you, you're mailing it. Can't interfere with the mail without a warrant. Again, not a lawyer. Never want to be, either.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Bzzt. Thank you for playing, but you're so wrong it's pathetic and sad. In the 18th century, there was a clear distinction between military (ordinance) and civilian (arms) weaponry. The framers didn't want to guarantee every citizen the right to have a cannon, they wanted to guarantee that citizens would be able to defend themselves, their property, and ultimately their community. The reasoning, of course, is that it was the citizen soldiers that fought the Revolution.
If the Constitution replaced "ordinance" with "arms," you would be correct, but it does not, and you need to spend some time with a quality dictionary.
Mod parent up. Many people seem to forget nowadays that when the government is trying to impose "background checks" they can simply ask the question "is this person likely to be involved in government overthrow? If yes, no gun."
A PDA, Laptop or any other similar device is simply to vast to ever consciously be aware of its contents. Also unlike a suitcase,
Well, some people have claimed that child porn got onto their computers through security exploits, with some success.
a PDA depends on an interface to inspect the contents. So it may not be possible to even inspect the whole "container" and the veracity of any statements made about the data is only as good the reputation and proper functioning of the interface.
Well, that's for judges & juries to sort out, like other types of complex evidence.
I am not deliberately attempting to be obtuse and over complicate the situation, and I am sure one might be reasonably certain that specific pieces of data were indeed placed by the owner, but is not reasonable doubt an important legal concept?
You are being obtuse. That's for judges & juries to sort out, like other types of complex evidence. This isn't the first time complex evidence appears in court.
I would say that data only exists as a dimension that is interpreted from the other 3. Data flows in this dimension from one "area" to another. There are certainly laws governing its behavior since programs are data, and they could be seen as data affecting other data. Much like pouring water on the top of a pyramid, it will flow down around it.
I know some might one to ask just what I have been smoking and how much I have smoked,
You definitely sound like you've been smoking something. Where can I get some?
Only the very sophisticated can peer into this dimension and forensically determine with any accuracy just what is what and who put it there.
So, ummm, have you ever heard of scientists and other experts testifying in court? This isn't new.
So just what data is in of itself a crime to possess? I cannot think of any.
Well, child porn & classified material come to mind. Try possessing a bible in Saudi Arabia.
Data can only indicate past crimes, and that data is in fact quite rare. I doubt any PDA's actually contain any data that could lead to convictions in the first place.
Data can indicate planning for future crimes - for example, conspiracy. Do you think the email records of all the hookers advertising on craigslist would indicate planning to commit a crime?
I find it troubling that law enforcement may use situations completely unrelated to your data to justify extensive searches of your devices.
Dude, if you are legitimately under arrest for a real crime, the police will search you. If you are carrying illegal drugs at the time, not good for you. If you are carrying illegal guns at the time, not good for you. If you are carrying child porn at the time, not good for you. If you have a backpack containing printouts of every email you wrote, they will search that too. Why shouldn't an electronic device be treated the same way? (provided the arrest is legitimate)
It was the founding fathers who came up with probable cause the issue here is not technological is philosophical and judicial. In our times we have allowed the government to take our rights away, in colonial AMERICA'n times the government was all about providing rights to citizens of society. Constituitional rights where not about protecting or helping government do its job they where about keeping government out of our lives. Now see what we have turned into? [Ofcourse the flip side of this argument is while the government was writing blurbs of freedom down within the constituition the framers where going home to their plantations and bitching at some negro's for not keeping up with production]
Vote Ron Paul.
According to federal law, the militia includes all able bodied men. It is not just the National Guard. In particular note the unorganized militia class.
10 USC Sec. 311 01/02/2006
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+170+37++(militia)%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20
Under that interpretation, they could search the battery compartment of your cellphone or laptop and check the CD drive of the laptop, but not the stored contents of the phone or laptop itself. Doing that would exceed the authority granted by Chimel & Belton - both of which explicitly define narrow terms and areas under which warrantless searches are permitted.
Yes, and you do too.
I guarantee you will break the law at least 5 times today.
It's in the government's best interest to make sure that all citizens can be arrested at any time by making enough laws that everyone is certian of breaking one or more.
I think he simply does not want idiot TSA agents rummaging through his stuff. It's like a person that tells the cop at his door he can not search his home without a warrant.
The Cops have no business to go rummaging. You need to do spy tactics to keep them from doing it.
If you have a briefcase in the car then, does that mean they are allowed to search the briefcase when they pick you up for drunk driving? If it's locked, do you have to provide the key? For what period are they allowed to keep it
:-)
I guess my question would be: is it permissible in any situation for police to seize personal effects to be used as "evidence", especially in a day and age when some of these effects are expensive and have been known in some cases to not come back (or not for a long time, or not in working condition) after being seized.
I'd say take a picture of the phone before they cart it off, but then they're likely to snag your camera, too
Whoa wait a second there Jason Bourne. Not that I agree with the whole Bush being President and attempting to take over long tracts of land in the Middle East for his retirement, BUT are you actually this crazy? I think you should be modded up insane +5. Seriously, what do you actually have on your machine or "high capacity memory stick" that would actually implicate you in the court of law? I doubt they're going to care about the pirated Christina Aguilara songs that you're "keeping on there because your girl friend likes a few songs".
One word... C r a z y
How hard can it be to understand that one's iPhone is part of one's personal effects? Very. Please remember that modern politicians either don't grok individual rights, or refuse to acknowledge that they exist. If you assert your rights, you're helping the terrorists. You might be a terrorist yourself, for even thinking in terms of individual rights rather than concerning yourself with the "good of society" or "national security".
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Does a “search of my laptop” include data that is automatically downloaded from a remote source—say, on startup?
Everyone but you is telepathic.
"The only relevant question is whether a cop stopping you for speeding or running a red light has probable cause to search your papers and personal effects for anything else."
Great point that's completely irrelevant, as this discusses searches incident to ARREST not traffic stops, which are not arrests and do not apply to this discussion in any way. Obviously yo bring them up to inflame, and because you're more interested in a moronic rant than the actual issue which you fail to address in any way.
Once again you prove you're too stupid to bother with understanding the subject of conversation before opening your dicksucker.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I think the Iphone and other such devices fall under both paper (meaning data) and effects (meaning the physical device).
I think it's pretty clear! Papers and effects are covered.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Glad to see the discussion get back on topic. Agree w/ posters that we must protect our data on phones, laptops, et al, with encryption and passwords. We can't leave the custody of our privacy entirely in the hands of the state. That's an invitation to abuse.
But I do need to correct the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by some posters who believe the leading subordinate clause irrelevant. The framers were classically trained and assumed we would be as well. Anyone familiar with Latin would recognize the phraseology as the ablative absolute. The correct way to read it in modern English would be, "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary...."
They would have worded it this way had it been good form to begin a sentence with a conjunction like "because", but they took their grammar seriously, and we've forgotten it all (at our peril).
-- "The only thing that is ever new in the world is the history you do not know." -- Harry Truman
You're saying that "If 'Freedom of Speech' suddenly means 'Kill someone for fun,' then we shouldn't have freedom of speech." This is a perfectly logical argument, but it turns the opposing position into a straw man, because no one's saying we should kill people for fun.
High-powered weaponry is no more likely to kill people than low-powered weaponry, unless you point it at someone and pull the trigger. Or unless it's inherently dangerous to possess, like unshielded nuclear material. Nobody's saying that this ought to happen. They're just saying that "If we're allowed to possess weapons, then we should be allowed to possess these weapons."
As far as freedom of speech goes, the Internet is the equivalent of a weapon of mass destruction. It lets anyone, anywhere in the world spread any idea they like, and gives others the freedom to accept or reject it at their leisure. The only reason to restrict the growth of the Internet is the same one there's always been -- because you don't want people to have that kind of power. Likewise the Second Amendment and modern weaponry.
Olmstead v. US (1928):
."
"The protection guaranteed by the [Fourth and Fifth] Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. . .
filter: +3. Hey, look! all the trolls went away!
This is simple. Constitution or no constitution, instruments of the state that are granted the ability to use force against its people should be restricted from arms in excess of what the people reserve for themselves.
The above clause should be inviolate for anyone with enough grey-matter to consider themselves human beings. Anyone that would surrender this are simply traitors to themselves and their own people.
So if the police want to be able to use assault weapons, automatic weapons and so on, then the people SHOULD NOT be restricted from bearing such weapons. If the people want to restrict themselves to billy clubs then fine, just remember to similarly restrict the state from using anything more than billy clubs against you. For those worried about military grade weapons in the hands of people, in any civil society there should always be a constitutional restriction on the use of the military against its own people. If the government makes the mistake of directing the military against the people, the above clause provides that the people will secure access to military grade weapons in order to defend themselves.
People can interpret and reinterpret the U.S. constitution until they are blue in the face. When it comes to the use of force in a society, it is, and has always been, the state that is the greatest threat. I don't need some centuries old piece of paper scrabbled on by some dried-up old men to tell me what I, indeed what any human being, should already know.
peace and respect
* Illegally obtained movies
* Illegal pornography
* An e-mail that says, "Hey Bob. You know that person they're looking for? I shot him with the 22 rifle under my bed and here's where they should be looking if they want to find the body..."
* etc.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
"* Illegally obtained MP3s
* Illegally obtained movies"
This is a civil matter. Since when do the cops prosecute civil matters? You are not performing the act of distributing the content. You are not selling copies of it on the street. Therefore, possession alone cannot be a crime, since how could they possibly know if you had the rights to own it in the first place? MP3's can be LEGALLY made from content you have purchased the rights to enjoy. Good Luck getting a DA to prosecute that one. Illegally obtained movies is just as hard to prove. Tell me what "looks" illegally obtained? Prosecute WHAT by the way. Tell me what misdemeanor of felony exists on the books anywhere that provides penalties for possession of media by itself (Your next example excluded of course). Maybe one day if having ANY media not authorized by DRM becomes a crime.........
"* Illegal pornography"
This may make a good argument since it is illegal to even possess the pictures of kids being abused, whether or not it was the person doing it. Best candidate for remote injection by bad cops.
"* An e-mail that says, "Hey Bob. You know that person they're looking for? I shot him with the 22 rifle under my bed and here's where they should be looking if they want to find the body...""
This is a past crime. The data itself is not a crime and not germane to the original search. Furthermore, its hearsay. That Masters guy just got released from prison since he was largely convicted on evidence less damning then your example.
I also meant to say statistically. Maybe 1% of 1% of 1% of 1%, etc of PDAs actually contain information that could justify further inquiry or indictments right there on the spot. I don't think that statistic justifies the invasion of privacy for all citizens based on incidents not germane to the original detainment by law enforcement.
Your first 2 examples also worry me since it seems to indicate your willingness to accept law enforcement as copyright cops. Contrary to what Big Entertainment wants to tell us, infringing data is merely an opinion in a court of law, and a CIVIL one at that. The judge needs to determine what level of infringement occurred, if it was willful, etc. Unless we have turned into the Judge Dredd world where law enforcement embodies all aspects, I cannot see how these types of actions have any sanity.
DRM: Even though it's a civil matter and none of the cops' business, if the plaintiff were somehow able to prove that you had illegally obtained files, it would certainly help their case against you. And, although legal copies of copywritten material can sometimes be made, some illegal copies have watermarking embedded that clearly shows that they've been pirated. Of course, they would likely need some way to prove that the infringing files were on the device other than sending cops after it. In fairness, IANAL and do not know if "conviction" is an appropriate term for losing a civil suit in which you've broken the law.
Kiddie porn: Illegal to possess under any circumstances. Unfortunately, this could certainly be used by bad cops or just somebody who doesn't like you to get you into trouble. If you could somehow prove that somebody else put it there and that you were unaware of it, I cannot imagine that you would be prosecuted, but you would still be in violation of the law and could be prosecuted/convicted.
An e-mail that says...: Certainly enough to send cops to go search the place described as the location of the body (assuming public land.) If the body is indeed found there, then it's probably enough to get a warrant to look under your bed. If a rifle with matching ballistics is found there, then it could certainly lead to a conviction.
Not trying to be contrary, just providing examples of data that could lead to a conviction.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
I don't think you are trying to be contrary, only discussing the problem. Your examples are a positive contribution to the discussion, and they are appreciated :)
Your arguments are linked by a single theme, which is data that COULD LEAD to a conviction.
A conviction only occurs in a crime. A crime is an action covered by laws, such as misdemeanors or felonies. Your are right that a conviction is not the proper term in a civil dispute. A judgment is awarded in a civil dispute. A judge bases his ruling on the evidence provided and on whether or not the plaintiff was damaged by the defendant.
Reasonable searches are conducted when law enforcement suspects that a crime may have taken place. This is why they are talking about "incidents relating to the search" and "germane to the original intent of the search". Law enforcement cannot conduct reasonable searches when there is no crime suspected to take place, but only the possibility of a civil dispute between 2 parties.
We are talking about 2 things here. Data and any other types of evidence. If the cops stopped you and found a body in the trunk of your car, that would certainly be evidence to use against you in a criminal proceeding.
With respect to data, law enforcement cannot adequately determine the state of the data at all, certainly not to the standards which must be maintained in a court room. That is impossible from inspection of the data. The inspection of the device or container, may provide indications of a crime committed, but only since markings can help determine if it is stolen, bootlegged, etc. Once again, with very few exceptions, possession of the data alone is not a criminal matter.
Now if several cops stopped someone in a truck and found they were selling pirated DVDs on the side of road, it would be probable cause to search the truck and any laptops for data. This specific instance would be searches that are germane to the original incident, one in which an actual crime was suspected to take place. That crime is the intent to distribute, the actual act of distribution, with or without profit, of copyrighted material. The cops would have to be careful, since I found that one of my friends bought a DVD cheaply at a swap meet and it was pirated. Passed inspection at first glance, even for me, since it was done very well. An actual box, color laser printed labels, thermal printing on the DVD. What gave it away was the the DVD was clearly a writable DVD, as it was not silver and the quality of the print jobs was a little off. Possessing 10 actual copies of the Matrix does not constitute probable cause to initiate a search.
You are also blurring the lines between civil matters and criminal matters when you stated, "DRM: Even though it's a civil matter and none of the cops' business, if the plaintiff were somehow able to prove that you had illegally obtained files, it would certainly help their case against you".
In a criminal proceeding the plaintiff is always the "state". The government is the plaintiff when any crime has taken place. The plaintiff in your example is the copyright holder. Law enforcement is not responsible for providing, investigating, or otherwise assisting the plaintiff or defendant in a civil case, since it is neither the plaintiff or defendant. To do so, would be speaking for the plaintiff or defendant, which there are no allowances in government for government to initiate a civil dispute between 2 parties. Once a criminal case has been completed, the victim may choose to pursue a separate civil case against the defendant. The victim may use evidence obtained in the criminal proceedings as well. OJ Simpson is the best example that comes to my mind, since he was acquitted in a criminal court, but that same evidence provided a judgment in a civil court.
I know it gets confusing when the RIAA and MPAA hire law enforcement with MAFIAA badges on their arms to raid businesses which deal in pirated media. However, these actions are also inc
Not only can you protect an arbitrary volume with tc, you can hide another container inside it in a truly undetectable way.
Sorry, everybody knows TrueCrypt has hidden volume support. Once they know you're using TrueCrypt, if you give them the plausible password they'll just torture you for the real one until they get what they're looking for. If it turns out that you didn't actually use that feature - whoops, sorry.
TrueCrypt, in my analysis, is more dangerous than standard file encryption, if you're defending against agents who will employ violence (government or not).
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Members of Troop G of the Missouri State Highway Patrol are thieves and Trooper Bradley Odle is the worst thieving pig of the bunch.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin
Ben was right in his observation but I doubt he had any personal disrespect for the power of the pen and impassioned discourse. There are good arguments that an intellectual agent provocateur can massively affect the direction of society.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." Samuel Adams
The route to an world turning event from a public protest/political rally is long and dangerous. The event would not be the real source of the idea or challenge it is merely the flashpoint or the point where a critical mass gets wide public notice.
This route requires that the starter of these "brush fires" act so relentlessly and boldly that they expose themselves to considerable risk. I seem to remember King George defining Sam Adams as a "terrorist".
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew