Slashdot Mirror


Michigan Police Could Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

SonicSpike writes "The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program. A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and videos off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections. 'Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,' a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities." Popular Mechanics has a short conversation with a 4th Amendment lawyer about the practice of slurping cellphone data, too, though it's unclear if the Michigan police are actually using these devices to their full potential.

361 of 525 comments (clear)

  1. Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    But, speaking from experience, you can claim illegal search and seizure at preliminary trials, which can result in the charges being dropped.

    It's disgusting that it happens, but it does. Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.

    1. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.

      It takes a damn good lawyer to get a cop tried for deprivation of rights under color of law. It ought to happen every time the exclusionary rule is applied.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by rhook · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most people do not go after the officers for deprivation of civil rights under color of authority (USC 1983 violation), which leaves them with civil and criminal liability and also bars their unions and departments of the ability to pay their legal fees. If more people would file these lawsuits against officers who violate their rights the practice would end very quickly.

    3. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This.

      It's not good enough to just have the evidence be ruled inadmissible. The cop ought to be fired (or worse) and compensation paid to the victim.

    4. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by causality · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.

      It takes a damn good lawyer to get a cop tried for deprivation of rights under color of law. It ought to happen every time the exclusionary rule is applied.

      I know an easier way to make this happen. Convince the cell phone manufacturers and service providers that laws and practices like this are hurting phone sales by removing some of the utility of the phones and making them into a potential liability. Then we'd finally have large, powerful, monied, well-represented coporate interests lobbying in our favor. Suddenly this practice would end in record time.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by superwiz · · Score: 3, Funny

      at $150k per copyright violation, i doubt you'd have to look very long to find a lawyer to sue for violating your copyrights on the videos and images on your phone.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It takes a damn good lawyer to get a cop tried for deprivation of rights under color of law. It ought to happen every time the exclusionary rule is applied

      No, it oughtn't. The exclusionary rule is applied on evidence if the prosecuting attorneys make an error or argue poorly, or sometimes even if the judge happens to be golfing buddies with the defense attorney. Deprivation of rights under color of law is a capital offense, and the death penalty is still on the books for it, though it would never be applied.

      Officers with malicious intent or deliberate indifference should be tried, but I have never met a single police officer who has a 100% flawless record in suppression hearings. The exclusionary rule is applied hundreds of times a day.

    7. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by westlake · · Score: 1

      It takes a damn good lawyer to get a cop tried for deprivation of rights under color of law. It ought to happen every time the exclusionary rule is applied.

      The exclusionary rule exists only because of the belief the cop or the prosecutor cannot be effectively disciplined in any other way.

      But it goes against the grain to exclude evidence that on its face is relevant and truthworthy.

    8. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Or share the same cell

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    9. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      More than that: the cop should be imprisoned, and so should his superiors, all the way up to the mayor, unless they can prove they were innocent and didn't know this was happening (yes, this requires guilty-until-proven-innocent, which I think is fine for cases involving abuses of civil liberties by the government).

    10. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 1

      I would like to know under what pretense that can search your phone in this manner... minor traffic violation... unless they think you were on you phone they have no right.. and to search photo's contacts ect.. is way out of the scope of why they stopped you.. but under proper handsfree operation they have no reason to know whats is on your phone...

      --
      Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
    11. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by dougmc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But, speaking from experience, you can claim illegal search and seizure at preliminary trials, which can result in the charges being dropped..

      Only if it is an illegal search.

      If the cop asks "You don't mind if I check your phone, do you?" and you don't say "No, I do not consent to a search" (the cops often phrase it in an odd way to make it not clear if "Yes" or "No" is the correct answer, so answering in an um-ambiguous way is wise) and you actually let him search it (or your car, pockets, etc.) ... then it's not an illegal search.

      Not nearly enough people realize that when the cops ask that -- the proper answer is "No, I do not consent to a search". If you don't have anything to hide and you're SURE of that, then I guess you can let him search, but if there's any doubt -- absolutely not. It will *not* go easier on you.

    12. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Suddenly this practice would end in record time.

      Or you could just encrypt and not have to rely on the government playing nice.

    13. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

      They might as well since he just slurped the data from it already.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    14. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      WTF? Deprivation of rights is not a capital offense. Put the crack pipe down, son, you've had enough.

    15. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Who was it that said "It is better that ten guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be punished"? Jefferson, maybe?

    16. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by rhook · · Score: 1

      Doubtful, police get edgy whenever they realize that the person they pulled over is a licensed attorney. Their word holds more weight than an officers in court.

    17. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by superwiz · · Score: 1

      only federal government has sovereign immunity with respect to federal laws. you CAN sue states in federal courts. people do it all the time.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    18. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Convince the cell phone manufacturers and service providers that laws and practices like this are hurting phone sales

      You consider that to be an easier way? Really?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by AnodeCathode · · Score: 1

      Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000242----000-.html

    20. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by freaq · · Score: 1

      I feel like a broken record. I want my peace officers looking into crimes, not chasing after me.
      If you've got nothing to hide, there is no way you should consent to a search, because doing so would validate wasting the time of a peace officer - now they're hooked into chasing something that you know, for a fact, does not exist. Do you want to be known as the asshat who is wasting our tax dollars?
      I totally agree with the unambiguous reply. Cops are masters at removing options from people, and they'll be vague or clear, whatever works. Practice saying this again and again: "I don't consent to a search because there is nothing to (find|hide)."

      --
      united states nuclear device terrorist bioweapon encryption cocaine korea syria iran iraq columbia cuba
    21. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hate to tell you, but nobody listens to him anymore. He was also the one who went on about freedom and security, and how you deserve neither for giving up the former. And? Anyone listening?

      I'm pretty sure, if the founding fathers of the US could see what happened, they'd be very, very sad to look at the way their dream worked out. I'd guess they see a lot of parallels between the US of now and the England of their times.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by silanea · · Score: 1

      [...] if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

      There is a provision about the death penalty, but not for the deprivation of rights in itself.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    23. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Sorry but this is just wrong. Nobody should should be treated differently by the law. Equal protection is important even if you happen to be a government employee (I am not).

      What should happen is the appropriate remedy be made. Cases where the office has violated the rights of the accused in order to discover the crime in the first place, or obtain evidence needed to prosecute it should be thrown out of court. The accused should then be permitted sue the government for any damages if they so desire a case they should be able to easily win.

      If a prosecutor keeps losing cases because some officer or local PD is abusing citizen's rights the officer should be corrected if possible, after all maybe he is just ignorant. I'd sure want want my boss to say "you're doing it wrong, fix it" before firing me. If the office continues to do it wrong he should be let go. Only if its a more serious violation like wrongful imprisonment that we have specific statues against prescribing jail time should land an officer in jail and those would apply to you and I as well so its fair.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    24. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In some parts of California not locking your vehicle when you get out has been shown to constitute consent. I will do anything I can legally do to prevent a search, thankyouverymuch.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by blue_adept · · Score: 1

      Funny. When I took Law 30 in high school I came away with a similarly ridiculous notion of my "rights" under the law. I though I understood what I could be arrested for, when I had to answer questions, what kinds of searches I could decline blah blah BLAH.

      Well, take it from someone with a little experience and some hard-earned wisdom. The subtle and nuances of how you reply make no difference. The cop has the gun and may not be too concerned about breaking your fingers. He doesn't know or care about the finer points law as much as you think he does, and he's definitely not afraid mess with you and make your life hell if he doesn't *like* you. It doesn't really matter what you SAY because unless it's recorded (which it won't be 99% of the time), you SAID whatever he SAYS you said. In off-slashdot reality, the best advice is to be a submissive dog and pray the officer is in a good mood. Yeah, not a popular opinion, but there you have it.

      --

      "Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
    26. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by DBNickel · · Score: 1

      But, like the TSA, there is also a wide-open door for abuse.

    27. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      What does that really matter if the cops already have my info, just based on a simple traffic stop? Sure, my ticket gets dropped. But that doesn't mean I get the pics of my girlfriend back that the cops are leering over, or that my personal info and data aren't still archived in a database somewhere to be used at the cops' discretion, or that they aren't now watching my house because they saw a pic of a marijuana plant on my phone, etc., etc,.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    28. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      No, you the tax payer should be punished when you don't police your officers. Keep your elected officials on a chain, and in turn they'll keep their officers on one too.

    29. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by hansamurai · · Score: 1

      Hey everyone, this guy took Law 30 in high school! Forget the ACLU and their "lawyers."

    30. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by DBNickel · · Score: 1

      Abuse doesn't have to happen in the courtroom. What if it's not my phone, but my wife's/daughter's/child's/etc.

    31. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      There is a BIG difference between what cops are taught at the Academy and what they actually do in the field. I've had friends in the past who were cops, and the stuff they would brag and laugh about doing would send a chill up your spine.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    32. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      That was Ben Franklin

    33. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      Well... he does raise a valid point that it doesn't really matter what you say. Without hard evidence to the contrary, the word of a cop is legally assumed to be more legitimate than your word. If it comes down to who said what, and if they aren't honest, then you lose.

    34. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      The reason that's such small comfort, is that the 4th Amendment doesn't say illegal evidence won't be used in court; it says the rights of the people .. shall not be infringed. As long as we view convictions as the only way that government may harm people, police will continue to do these things.

      There need to be statutes that put the "illegal" back into "illegal search and seizure." Cops who consider illegally searching/seizing should be weighing the benefits of the activity against the sentences that they might end up serving.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    35. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Besides, the cell manufacturers would never publicly go against the cops, it's just really bad PR. (Those of us who know their ready acquiescence is bad are a statistically insignificant minority.)

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    36. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Even if it is recorded, the only reliable source is the cop's cruiser cam (I mean, he just took your cell phone), and good luck getting access to that. It'll almost certainly be "partially corrupted" where the parts that are corrupted are any part that benefits you.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    37. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by tenaciousj · · Score: 1

      Or how about this. Load your phone with music and movies (legally obtained of course). Get stopped and let the cop copy everything. Let your first call be to the MPAA/RIAA laywers.

    38. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Other than scare value (they're after our women!) is there some special quality that being in the possession of a female lends to the phone?

    39. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by superwiz · · Score: 1

      First of all, says who? And second of all, the evidence in this case would be the phone itself and the images on it. They are not "gathering" this evidence. They are copying it. From the copyright perspective, they would be in the clear if they held the phone as evidence pending resolution of the ticket. Of course, that would be problematic a whole slew of other perspectives. Copying without having the authority to copy, especially when directly informed by the copyright holder that the right to copy is withheld, is still very much copyright infringement. In fact, since they would make a copy after a direct request by the copyright holder not to copy, they may be liable for increased damages.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    40. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I was told, after my arrest, trial and acquittal that I could sue the police for exactly this, except for one thing. I was white, male and upper middle class.

      The police had no business arresting me, they just did (ostensibly at the time for "drunk in public". When I informed them that I was neither "drunk nor in public" they changed their tune to "resisting arrest" and "assault on police officer" later at the station. They had to fill out the booking sheet three times to get it right.

      The problem for the cops was that their story didn't line up with the facts, I'm 6'5" and was 220 athletic build (swimmer), and trained in martial arts, and they were 5'6" and 165ish. IF I resisted and assaulted them, I would have killed them. The jury saw that they were lying and it took them longer to elect a foreman than it did to acquit.

      It was so quick in fact that the lawyer told me that suck a quick return was not a good sign; that when juries come back quick it usually means a guilty verdict.

      In the followup meeting with the lawyer, he said that I could probably sue, except that I was "white, male and middle class", meaning I wasn't important enough (rich) or of under privileged class (poor, darker skin) enough to win.

      Editorial: Rodney King wasn't beat up because he was black. He was beat up because they were LA County Sheriff Deputies. It happens more often than not and until people stop seeing race in everything, it will continue to happen. We've just started to expect it to happen, so it is permitted.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    41. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The correct answer to the question you listed is "Yes, I do mind you searching my phone, No you may not search it".

      Followed by "If you would like to search my phone, that you must have a search warrant. Even if you gain a search warrant, I will hold you personally, and all other agencies, departments and municipalities responsible in a court of law for any and all civil rights violations. Further this warning shall not serve as cause to believe I have committed a criminal activity to which you have not personally witnessed, nor has been reported to you by any witnesses. Any further attempt to gain access to my phone or other personal properties, either through repeated questions or other coercive interrogations shall constitute a violation of my rights, and will be addressed pursuant to all civil and criminal penalties that may apply."

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    42. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by dougmc · · Score: 1

      The correct answer to the question you listed is "Yes, I do mind you searching my phone, No you may not search it".

      There's lots of correct answers, not just one. Any answer that makes it clear you do not consent to a search is good. (A simple "Yes" or "No" to a vague question is not good.)

      You don't need to talk like a lawyer, just make sure it's clear you do not consent.

    43. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      Some of us still study the founding fathers, and not only are they rolling in their grave, I can't believe more people aren't standing up against this and other losses of freedom and liberty. The quote is: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." -- Benjamin Franklin other good ones relevant to the story: "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." -- Thomas Jefferson "We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." -- Abraham Lincoln

    44. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The reason why you must sound like a lawyer is so that you ARE clear you are not consenting. The vague question in the original post makes it a requirement that you answer the question appropriately. The question is about "minding", and even if you answer the question vaguely (either Yes or No), you still have not given permission for the search to proceed.

      I could have said "no, I don't mind, and no, I do not consent, because you didn't say the magic word". The other option is to ask if you're being arrested, and if not than are you free to go. A traffic citation is not grounds for further searches.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    45. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I don't have any problems with garrotting the cop, his superiors, and the mayor, but I disagree about the close relatives. Just because they're blood relations doesn't mean they agree with the cop, or even like him. I have a sister I haven't spoken to in years because she's bipolar, and my wife has a girlfriend who hasn't spoken to her own son in years because he's a sociopathic con artist who tried to steal everything she owned.

    46. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry but this is just wrong. Nobody should should be treated differently by the law. Equal protection is important even if you happen to be a government employee (I am not).

      Bullshit. These people are the law. They carry guns, and can oppress us any time they want, because they are, by definition, the authorities. The only recourse we have is to get higher authorities to put them in their place. They absolutely deserve different, and harsher treatment, because of their higher responsibility.

      Cases where the office has violated the rights of the accused in order to discover the crime in the first place, or obtain evidence needed to prosecute it should be thrown out of court. The accused should then be permitted sue the government for any damages if they so desire a case they should be able to easily win.

      And how does that fix things? It doesn't. It costs a lot of money to defend yourself in court, so lots of people are going to get screwed because they can't afford to defend themselves against these illegal actions. Suing the government never changes anything either: the same fascists are still in the same positions.

      If a prosecutor keeps losing cases because some officer or local PD is abusing citizen's rights the officer should be corrected if possible, after all maybe he is just ignorant. I'd sure want want my boss to say "you're doing it wrong, fix it" before firing me. If the office continues to do it wrong he should be let go.

      Bullshit again. These officers are power-hungry pigs, and their superiors are too. Prosecutors don't care about anyone's rights either, just with winning as many cases as possible, regardless of the guilt of those accused. When was the last time you heard of a cop being let go for violating someone's rights? The only time it happens is when someone dies. And then the cop gets a slap on the wrist and goes and finds a new job somewhere else. As another poster pointed out, violating someone's rights under color of authority is supposed to be a capital offense. That means the officer needs to be executed for such an offense. If you can't handle that, then you're not fit to be a cop.

    47. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by dougmc · · Score: 1

      "I do not consent to a search" is adequate.
      "I am not giving you permission to search my car/phone/rectum/etc." is adequate.

      Keep it simple. No need to get fancy. And stick to your guns.

    48. Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a FANTASTIC plan.

  2. OUTRAGEOUS cost by fwice · · Score: 5, Informative

    ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680.

    emphasis mine. ACLU put in a FOIA, police wanted $544,680 to respond.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? No one, when the pay-to-play is that high...

    1. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by SomePgmr · · Score: 2

      Wow, that's just disgusting.

    2. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by rhook · · Score: 1

      I thought it was illegal to charge more than actual processing costs when someone files an FOIA?

    3. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      I thought it was illegal to charge more than actual processing costs when someone files an FOIA?

      It is, but the Chief has to buy a summer house to "process and fulfill" the FOIA request in.

    4. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by Kazymyr · · Score: 1

      Well, if they have 54468 cases on record, and they set the processing fee at $10/case...

      --
      I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
    5. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 1

      What do you want to bet the company that makes the unit charges per record or per phone pulled out of it. That would let the police hide the transaction cost in the normal budget instead of adding it to the equipment budget and the company would make a freaking fortune.

    6. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My dad likes to file FOIA requests when the police in his home town (of 1 million people) do something illegal. They frequently quote absurd fees, after which he leaves and comes back with an officer of the court who makes them do it for free. He should have been a lawyer. Or maybe the world is better off with one fewer lawyer and one more electrical engineer.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    7. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by causality · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My dad likes to file FOIA requests when the police in his home town (of 1 million people) do something illegal. They frequently quote absurd fees, after which he leaves and comes back with an officer of the court who makes them do it for free. He should have been a lawyer. Or maybe the world is better off with one fewer lawyer and one more electrical engineer.

      Seriously, cops seem to wonder why they're not better appreciated and respected. No sense of irony.

      As a whole, it's not like the police have a great deal of respect for citizens who exercise their rights. So I have to wonder: do they retaliate? Do they suddenly take a really hard look at his driving and see how many things they can charge him with that they'd normally let slide? Do they insist on searching him for guns/drugs/dead hookers/etc. every time he gets pulled over for i.e. speeding?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    8. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Fortunately the police won't use this at traffic stops, it's too expensive (time) to justify the cost. However if they take you for questioning it'll certainly be used.

    9. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by blincoln · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "As a whole, it's not like the police have a great deal of respect for citizens who exercise their rights. So I have to wonder: do they retaliate? Do they suddenly take a really hard look at his driving and see how many things they can charge him with that they'd normally let slide? Do they insist on searching him for guns/drugs/dead hookers/etc. every time he gets pulled over for i.e. speeding?"

      Probably.

      A friend of mine went to court to get out of a speeding ticket. I'm guessing it was a fairly high-priced ticket, because when he was successful, the police waited a year or more, then filed a completely made-up charge of "driving without a license" (he was in his late 30s, and had been a licensed driver for several decades). The charge/requirement to show up in court was mailed to him... at his old address, because he'd moved during the time in-between those two events.

      When he didn't show up in court (because he never received the thing that was mailed to his old address), he automatically lost, and an *additional* count of "flight to evade prosecution" was added. But he still didn't know about any of this. He found out when he was pulled over something like *another* year or two later for an illegal lane change in an intersection. At that point he was immediately taken into custody and sent to jail (because clearly he was a convicted felon with no respect for the law). He talked to a lawyer and was told that because judgment had already taken place (back when the original bogus charge made its uncontested court appearance), it would cost something like $30K to contest it. It was cheaper for him to spend three months in county jail.

      So yeah, the police don't exactly have any reservations about abusing the system if they feel that it's being done to punish someone they believe deserves it.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    10. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by rhook · · Score: 1

      Do they insist on searching him for guns/drugs/dead hookers/etc. every time he gets pulled over for i.e. speeding?

      You could easily prove harassment if this started happening, the department can pay that lawsuit off by draining their pension fund.

    11. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by sys_mast · · Score: 5, Informative

      Guess i'm going to call you a liar.

      At least where I live to be called to court someone has to HAND deliver the letter to you. Most people filing a claim against someone they don't care for will pay a few bucks to have the sheriffs department deliver the notice.(I don't remember the price to have the cops deliver it for you but I thought it was very cheap. Doubly so if you don't like the person and have the deliver it to the persons work) But there isn't anything like sending a letter to an address you lived at at one point in your life and claiming you were notified.

      If that's the way the courts work where you live you need to get that changed, it's wrong.

      --
      Those who can, do.
    12. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by cloudmaster · · Score: 1

      Plug it in, and start writing up that seatbelt ticket. In 1.5 minutes, you've got all the data and can peruse it later.

    13. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by GrahamTZ · · Score: 2

      I believe him.

      I have also been "officially served" court papers that were sent to a previous address (even though my address was correct at the time of being served on "official government systems" like the New York State DMV and IRS)

      Since I failed to appear in court, I automatically lost.

      I found out about it when I went to pay for lunch with my debit card and it was rejected. Called the bank and they informed me they froze my account on behalf of a collection agency assigned by the court.

    14. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by BrianRoach · · Score: 2

      There's a *slight* difference in how it works between a collections (civil) case and a criminal one. Specifically that whole "being served" thing.

    15. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by BrianRoach · · Score: 2

      Yup. Lying. Or whomever told him the story was.

      You can have a bench warrant posted for not paying or appearing for a ticket that *you signed* (which means you were given notice).

      No notice, no warrant, no arrest.

    16. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by jaypifer · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. I've lost a case in New Jersey and never saw a paper because I was out of town. Now I could have reopened the case but I was admittedly wrong and it would have cost a little more time and money to get the same result.

      The reality of getting served is not the same as you see on TV.

      --
      Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
    17. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by buttersnout · · Score: 2

      I had an experience very similar to his. I was given a speeding ticket while taking someone to the hospital. The doctors told me serious damage had occurred to the patients lungs because I was unable to get her there sooner. I didn't have a phone to call an ambulance where I lived so I felt I had a good defense of necessity and decided to contest the ticket. A couple months later I was in an accident caused by another vehicle. I was charged with driving with a suspended license. It turns out the officer had written my address wrong. A lawyer was able to get all the related documents which showed I had filled out the correct address but the officer did not and they sent the summons for speeding, notice of default judgement, notice of suspended license etc. to the wrong address. The lawyer told me I could file a motion to reopen the case for speeding and that I should pretty easily be able to get the driving with a suspended license charge dismissed. I presented the documents to judge that the lawyer had given me and the judge looked at me, paused and told me I had a weak defense and found me guilty. I sent in my money for appeal which the state deposited and claimed they never received and so I did not get an appeal. After that I didn't think it was worth bothering to fill out the forms to reopen judgement on the speeding ticket

    18. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by Thing+1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I second the ridiculousness of our politicians. I was ("recently") served notice that I had to pay my car's excise tax (yes, this is a tax you pay annually, for the luxury of keeping your car in your possession).

      "Recently" is in scare quotes, because the notice was served similarly to Arthur Dent's house destruction notice: I found it while walking through the yard after the snow had cleared, it was an envelope under a bush. I thought, "Huh, someone's trash blew in, better pick it up" and then saw my name on the front. It was addressed to me, at my address, and in the place of the stamp said "hand deliver only" and it had two scotch tape pieces diagonally across the front, as if it had been taped to my front door.

      So much is wrong with this. They could have taped it inside the storm door, and it would not have blown off. They could have paid the going rate of $0.44 and it would have gotten to me without going through my bushes and the winter; instead they likely paid someone $8 to deliver this piece of extortion.

      The saving grace is that the bill is due in the future, so they weren't able to rake me over the coals in e.g. February for not getting the notice that they "hand-delivered" in December. Fucking morons.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    19. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Baffle them with bullshit!

      Their idea was probably to respond with tens of thousands of pages of logs at $2+ per page copy fees.... and ship it all via Fed Ex Overnight. Great play by the police... scummy but clever. Microsoft did the same in their antitrust trial. It's how you make research into corruption really, really expensive.

    20. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2

      Guess i'm going to call you a liar.

      At least where I live to be called to court someone has to HAND deliver the letter to you. Most people filing a claim against someone they don't care for will pay a few bucks to have the sheriffs department deliver the notice.(I don't remember the price to have the cops deliver it for you but I thought it was very cheap. Doubly so if you don't like the person and have the deliver it to the persons work) But there isn't anything like sending a letter to an address you lived at at one point in your life and claiming you were notified.

      If that's the way the courts work where you live you need to get that changed, it's wrong.

      Wrong, something similar happened to me, because of a corrupt Maryland State's Attorney. I was fortunate that (a) my dad is a cop (which helped in preventing them from dragging out "extradition" from VA where I got pulled over to MD) and (b) the desk sergent where I was "booked" after "extradition" was a kindly old guy with full access to the court records, who printed me out everything so I could show the judge that the State's Attorney was a lying deceitful asshole who never served me at my MD address as he was claiming, had no such documents to prove it, and knew that I had long since moved out of MD. Maryland is a VERY corrupt state. Oh, and the judge didnt so much care... "Fix it... serve him now" - how the hell does that fix a month in jail for "fugitive from the law" charges over a minor violation because the State's Attorney lied to get such warrants out on no factual basis?

      It was all dropped... but at the cost of a MONTH of my life because of a deceitful, crooked, asshat, lying bastard State's Attorney.

    21. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by arashi+no+garou · · Score: 3, Informative

      As a whole, it's not like the police have a great deal of respect for citizens who exercise their rights. So I have to wonder: do they retaliate? Do they suddenly take a really hard look at his driving and see how many things they can charge him with that they'd normally let slide?

      Take it from someone who works in law enforcement (not a cop, support staff): Yes, yes they do. And they brag about it to each other and to those of us who work behind the scenes. It's disgusting, and it's one of the things that forces me to weigh my conscience against the near-Utopian benefits package. If my part time job could even come close to the same level of benefits I'd leave law enforcement for good.

    22. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      ...or French...

      --
      Stone
    23. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Apparently you've never been to, or heard of, the many states that don't require tickets to be signed. Oregon is one (only place I've ever been ticketed).

      And yes, they do send those papers via mail for traffic infractions, though it's only to the address registered with the DMV (update when you move). If you don't respond, they may, in fact, swear out a bench warrant.

      This sounds like an extreme case, but is plausible.

    24. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Guess i'm going to call you a liar.

      At least where I live to be called to court someone has to HAND deliver the letter to you.

      Guess you're a stupid fucking asshole.

      In California the process for serving notice varies from county to county, and there are over fifty of them. In some the papers must be hand-delivered. In some there effectively are no papers. They just issue a warrant, and you find out about it when you get stopped.

      If that's the way the courts work where you live you need to get that changed, it's wrong.

      This should have been your first sentence. Your current first sentence can go up your ass sideways.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Your friend is lying to you.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    26. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Of course, you could do the financially-beneficial thing and the *right* thing by making a record of all of these conversations and write a book.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    27. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by sys_mast · · Score: 1

      Seems there is an abundance of posts indicate that is actually the case in some states/counties.

      Clearly blincoln statement was true or at least very possible. I guess it seems so unfair that I didn't want to believe it!

      --
      Those who can, do.
    28. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Nope, civil and criminal cases are not handled the same, as some other posters have already mentioned.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    29. Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost by jbeach · · Score: 1

      Was this in New Jersey, by any chance? I only ask because I grew up in NJ, and the town-level police were just uniformly petty, vindictive and sleazy in just this way.

      --
      The Invisible Hand of the Free Market is what punches workers in the nuts.
  3. Wire? by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 2

    Once I saw this was wired (obviously), I started to wonder about the practicality of this (ignoring all the rights issues). I mean fairly common phones are one thing. But for those of us who buy the cheaper phones...usually they use fairly obscure power/data jacks (so they can charge us an arm and a leg for power cables when they break or get lost). It'd be quite annoying to carry about a few hundred different cables...

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    1. Re:Wire? by wiedzmin · · Score: 2

      It does say that it works with 3,000 different phones and the fact that most manufacturers will stick to same types of jacks for their product lines, probably limits the number of jacks cops have to have in the cruiser to maybe a dozen or two.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    2. Re:Wire? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, no they have a convenient carrying storage case. Since the summary didn't bother you may have a look see here for their wares.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    3. Re:Wire? by rhook · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that most new phones are using either mini or micro USB jacks.

    4. Re:Wire? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The Cellebrite UFED Ruggedized kit is a complete end-to-end solution contained in a hard case for safe transport which includes: a UFED Ruggedized device, a universal rapid phone charger, 85+ data cables, a USB flash drive, and other mission critical accessories. ...
      Universal phone charger - For rapid charging of handsets/PDAs in the field which are found with no battery life remaining. Includes more than 40 charging tips with phone booster for the majority of handsets available worldwide.UFED Ruggedized

      Damn, I gotta gitme one of these things!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:Wire? by adolf · · Score: 1

      We use Cellebrite gear at work to do phonebook transfers between phones.

      The stuff is alarmingly good at what it does, and is simple to connect. One just selects the type of phone from an hierarchical on-screen menu, and it then tells you which cable to use (they're quite handily coded and labeled). Plug it in, push go button, wait a bit, and done.

      The main problem we have with them is with phones that have crufty data connectors.

      I have no doubt that an officer would find it very easy to use with minimal (or perhaps no) training.

      I must now learn how, exactly, the device works and figure out how to keep it from inspecting my Droid. (I don't have anything to hide, but I do sometimes travel to Michigan and I just prefer my private stuff to remain private.)

    6. Re:Wire? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      I wonder how hard it would be to rig a phone to deliver enough current through it to fry the machine itself? Do these data cables have a positive/negative wire? It wouldn't be hard to reverse those and do likewise on your own data cable at home/office...

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    7. Re:Wire? by omglolbah · · Score: 1

      Destroying government property is rarely a good idea :p

    8. Re:Wire? by Lucky+Kevin · · Score: 1

      Destroying government property is rarely a good idea :p

      but not if you have take reasonable steps to preserve it!

      Me: Don't plug that device into my phone officer. I use that port to power my 100V hair dryer from my phone.

      Cop: Yeah, right! That's the first time I've heard that one - Today!
      plugs in phone
      Cellebrite gives out smoke and catches fire

      Me: I warned you!

      --
      Kevin
      "It's not the cough that carries you off, it's the coffin they carry you off in" O. Nash
  4. Erase your phone by vrmlguy · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2110, you want to own an iPhone 3GS or later.

    You can remove all settings and information from your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch using "Erase All Content and Settings" in Settings > General > Reset.

    When you opt to "Erase All Content and Settings," the process can take up to several hours. The time this process takes will vary by device:

    Devices that support hardware encryption: Erases user settings and information by removing the encryption key to the data. This process takes just a few minutes.
    Devices that overwrite memory: Overwrites user settings and information, writing a series of ones to the data partition. This process can take several hours, depending on the storage capacity of your iPhone or iPod touch. During this time, the device displays the Apple logo and a progress bar.

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    1. Re:Erase your phone by volkerdi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that'll help you when you're pulled over in Michigan. Add obstruction of justice to the charges, wiseguy.

    2. Re:Erase your phone by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      A moderately effective stopgap, perhaps, but having to nuke all your phone data because you were pulled over for something that may or may not have been a traffic violation is hardly an acceptable state of affairs.

    3. Re:Erase your phone by stating_the_obvious · · Score: 1

      It's only obstruction of justice if the cops have a right to search and seize. This is still pretty unsettled space. So yes, so chucklehead, minimum wage, part-time cop and a just passed the bar (barely) ADA might toss an obstruction charge into the mix, all that will do is get the ACLU that much more excited to come help you beat the pants of the silly police.

    4. Re:Erase your phone by MikeBabcock · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You're not obstructing justice if you're not a suspect or a material witness ... IANAL.

      That question you see lawyers ask on TV all the time? You should ask it. "Am I being charged with something officer?"

      Of course, people are afraid of police abuse (for good reason) and just do what's asked of them anyway.

      IMHO the police should realize who they serve.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    5. Re:Erase your phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have an ever better option - no phone. Problem solved.

    6. Re:Erase your phone by mysidia · · Score: 1

      A moderately effective stopgap, perhaps, but having to nuke all your phone data because you were pulled over for something that may or may not have been a traffic violation is hardly an acceptable state of affairs.

      How about you make an 'unofficial' modification to your phone's communication port that includes breaking the receive line and emitting random bursts of high-voltage high-amperage current, way outside normal USB specs, if plugged in with a NORMAL USB cable, instead of your specially modified cable?

    7. Re:Erase your phone by Drakino · · Score: 1

      Has there been any hacks for Blackberries to bypass the security somehow? I've never looked too deeply into how RIM's security differs from other companies.

      The video you linked to shows the phone being jailbroken, thus bypassing a lot of the security as expected. Seems for now my iPad 2 is safe (since no jailbreak methods have worked), but any other iOS device is vulnerable, even with the latest 4.3.2 firmware.

    8. Re:Erase your phone by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You can also erase your phone by creating a 150,000 volt potential difference with your phone in the middle.

      How about having an app running on the phone that creates a high potential difference between the phone and the "analyzer" device plugged into it, by shorting the terminals of the battery directly to the unapproved device, while intentionally blowing some custom fusible links installed to the leads required in order to actually communicate with the phone?

      (In addition to modification from the standard USB pinout, or possibly another cutout section on the jack, with a modified cable for your own use to make contact with the new separated receive/transmit PINs).

    9. Re:Erase your phone by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1

      What the hell??? Don't erase your phone.

      The police's practices here are clearly an abuse of power over ignorant citizens. They are searching you. You are under no obligation to consent, though they will use their authority in attempts to trick you into it. Even if they merely ASK you what is there, it is a seach and you do not need to answer.

      If police tell you to hand over an item in your car or on your person, just respectfully and unambiguously decline consent. In no case hand them anything or open a door for them, as it will imply consent. If they continue to reach into your pockets or enter your car, keep saying it. You will have a far greater chance fighting it in court.

    10. Re:Erase your phone by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      Or use your modification to trigger a thermal runaway in the Li-ion battery >:-).

    11. Re:Erase your phone by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Or use your modification to trigger a thermal runaway in the Li-ion battery >:-).

      The problem with that is.... (1) someone could get hurt, (2) it would destroy the phone, and (3) you might be arrested due to intentionally creating a life-threatening situation "trying to cause a fire/explosion"

    12. Re:Erase your phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IMHO the police should realize who they serve.

      Most all of them do realize who they serve. The American slave labor industry, which they call by the nickname 'the penal system'

      The legal slave labor industry brings in billions of dollars a year, and all the police need to do is keep them stocked with fresh innocent workers. Kickbacks are made to the police departments and related government departments from these prisons for their work.

      Since the excuse the police use to avoid being shot and killed on site is that only criminals will be placed into slave labor, they are faced with the problem of having very very few potential workers.
      Because of this, their task is to frame as many innocent people as they possibly can as criminals. In this way, they can quite literally pick as many random people off the street as they need to meet the prisons slave quotas.

      For anyone that says not all cops are bad, just remember that a lot of them are involved in these crimes against humanity, and for the rest they stand at the side line knowing and letting this happen. Also remember that a person can be both a bad cop and a good person at the same time. This is typically what one means by "good cop". They are not a good cop, they are a bad cop, just a good person.

      The true problem is that a lot of cops are both bad cops and bad people.

      ALL cops know there are a lot of other cops are just petty criminal thugs, which means by definition all cops are bad, even if some cops are very much worse than others.

      The only good cop is one that has left the force on their own, or who is dead.

      The cop that doesn't commit any crimes him/her self is not evil or a destructive force to humanity of course, and they do not deserve the hate as the rest of the police force does that so casually murders, tortures, and rapes people on a nearly daily basis, but they are still bad cops, even if through no fault of their own.

      Hell, even I must admit, if I was a "good" cop, I would fear for my life and the lives of my family and everyone/everything I hold dear, in fear of retaliation from the true bad cops.
      So I can't exactly blame them. But there is no pretending that these are good cops, even if they are good people.

      Cops are supposed to protect the people against criminals, which includes the bad cops. Failing to do you job, even through no fault of your own, and even for a saint of a person, is still failing at your job.

    13. Re:Erase your phone by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Has there been any hacks for Blackberries to bypass the security somehow? I've never looked too deeply into how RIM's security differs from other companies.

      Yes, other governments have been able to hack into their network and view texts and emails.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    14. Re:Erase your phone by Squiggle · · Score: 1

      You need to be more savvy than that.

      You can start with "Am I being charged with something officer?"

      But when he says, "I'll charge you for jaywalking." Or some other obviously false but your-word-versus-his charge, then you have the next level of problem to deal with.

      I don't have any good advice for that one, but I do know at that point I'd feel extremely unsafe.

      --
      Complexity Happens
    15. Re:Erase your phone by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Would be the heck of a modification.

      1. You can't emit high amperage current. You can restrict current with a resistor, you can make a circuit that allows too much current to be drawn, and you can make a circuit that allows for a lot of current to flow safely. But you can't forcefully push current into something.

      2. USB operates at a fixed 5 volts, so a phone is very unlikely to have any suitable voltage regulation circuitry connected to the USB connector. Good luck getting your own in there, it's all tiny surface mount components pretty much impossible to solder by hand, and without any spare room inside.

      3. Most phones can't operate in host mode, so they can't power the USB port and only receive power from it.

      Technically the idea is possible, but it's very impractical to do in a phone.

    16. Re:Erase your phone by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Hint, despite the humour in your statement, it is me.

      Police are public servants. Their job, like the government's, is to make my life better. They exist only because we allow them to.

      Try this on for size: if the vast majority of voters didn't want police service, there wouldn't be one. Unfortunately, the vast majority of voters don't like thinking about these edge cases until it happens to them.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  5. Those pesky Michigan people... by SirAstral · · Score: 1

    I bet they thought they were citizens of the United States, guess they was wrong, the police are busy schooling them pretty good.

    1. Re:Those pesky Michigan people... by Tsiangkun · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, they are not citizens, they are now property of the State. They can hold elections and have their elected government dissolved. They do not have a functional vote.. They have no say in their government. They are taxed without representation. Michigan has serious issues, and their new martial law techniques raise serious questions.

  6. Just say by Ziwcam · · Score: 2

    "Sorry officer, I don't have a cellphone"

    1. Re:Just say by SirAstral · · Score: 1

      Never Lie to the Police! That actually IS illegal!

      Just tell them you refuse to answer the question. You have a 5th amendment right to say nothing. But you do not have a 5th amendment right to lie.

    2. Re:Just say by romco · · Score: 2

      Not good to give false information to a cop but you are not required to give information that might incriminate you either.

      You could say nothing or:

      "I do not consent to searches, am I free to do now?"

      or just:

      "am I free to go now".

      --
      AdFuel
    3. Re:Just say by Hatta · · Score: 2

      You have a first amendment right to lie. Doesn't mean the government respects it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:Just say by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not good to give false information to a cop but you are not required to give information that might incriminate you either.

      You could say nothing or:

      "I do not consent to searches, am I free to do now?"

      or just:

      "am I free to go now".

      That "I do not consent to searches" is key. A lot of times the cops will phrase the question as "do you mind if we search your car?" If you say "no" they take that to mean "no, I don't mind" and if you say "yes" they take it to mean "yes you may search". Saying you do not consent to a search removes this ambiguity.

      It's some sad times we live in that such a concern would ever cross the minds of a regular citizen who is not a career criminal.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Just say by superwiz · · Score: 1

      in most states you can be held on a blank suspicion of being suspicious for a short period of time. once you are held in administrative hold, they record and process it. which means they can create a full list of items found on you: your wallet and its insides, etc.... you see where this is going, right?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:Just say by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      You have a 5th Amendment right not to provide testimony against yourself. IANAL, etc., so I don't know if answering whether or not you have a cell phone would qualify, but I kind of doubt it. It's a completely moot point when I'm on my motorcycle, because I have my phone mounted on my handlebars for a more accurate speedometer (mines off by 10% give or take) and navigation. I don't have to answer the question. If the cop's eyes are good enough to pass a driving test, he can see it.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    7. Re:Just say by GrifterCC · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even if you say nothing to the officer who stops you, you can be arrested for any driving infraction, even one that isn't a jailable offense, when you're in your vehicle.

      Once you're arrested, you can be searched sans warrant. Once you're arrested, your car can be impounded, and your entire vehicle can be "inventory" searched.

      Your car can also be searched sans warrant based on probable cause of any criminal activity, even if you aren't arrested.

      Better hope the courts decide your phone is more like a footlocker or a trunk, but good luck with that. The Supreme Court, over the course of about a dozen major Fourth Amendment decisions, has taken a dim view of your right to privacy while in your automobile.

      IAAL.

    8. Re:Just say by GrifterCC · · Score: 1

      Also: I'm not your lawyer. Don't rely on that as legal advice.

    9. Re:Just say by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Martha Stewart did not go to jail on stock fraud charges alone. She mostly went to jail for lying to investigators.

      Do not talk to the police. Do not give them statements. Do not give them ammo.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    10. Re:Just say by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's some sad times we live in that such a concern would ever cross the minds of a regular citizen who is not a career criminal.

      Right; because innocent people never got hung back in the good ol' days.

      What planet are you living on, anyway?

    11. Re:Just say by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      You don't even have to do that. If the officer is not arresting you, when he asks for your cellphone, just say "no." I have only once been in a situation where the police officer would have had access to my cellphone (I did not have one at the time).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:Just say by adolf · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the "sad times we live in" have merely persisted since the "good ol' days" -- GP's statement didn't rule that possibility out. Assuming otherwise is non sequitur, at best.

      So, it seems to me that you kids might actually be in agreement with each other...and that one of you has some comprehension issues.

    13. Re:Just say by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      The phrase implies the existence of a time when things were better. You don't go around saying "what a sad time we live in, when only 90% of us can have broadband access". It would be retarded. So no, assuming that he meant what he wrote is not "non sequitur at best" - it's common fucking sense. Whereas being a silly pedant is useless, at best.

    14. Re:Just say by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      get bluetooth and put your phone in your glove compartment. lock it if you can. or put it in your trunk. :)

    15. Re:Just say by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      IANAL, Mr. IAAL, but I do know for a fact that is not true in my state.

      There is actually a whole list of infractions for which they cannot arrest me. The only way they could would be if I assaulted them or something similar at the time of the stop. And even if they had valid reason to arrest me, they could only search my person, not what is in the car.

      Further (there was a state Supreme Court ruling about a year ago affirming this): unless there is probable cause to believe there is something illegal in my vehicle or that it was used in the commission of a crime, they cannot legally search it, even if I am arrested, even if my vehicle is impounded, even for "inventory" purposes. The police or the impound can make a list of readily visible items, nothing more.

    16. Re:Just say by adolf · · Score: 1

      I derived no such implication from the posting, because the implication is not present.

      What planet are you living on, anyway?

    17. Re:Just say by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Sprechen Sie English?

    18. Re:Just say by adolf · · Score: 1

      Fuck.

      You've invoked Godwin's Law. It's all downhill from here...

    19. Re:Just say by tibit · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but the following comes straight from the horse's mouth. I will use Denver as an example locality.

      Infractions are civil matters. You cannot get arrested for them (DPOM 204.06.3.c, "Arrests for traffic infractions are not allowed."), and you won't go to jail for them -- not unless you do something else, like failing to show up for a court date, that is. Local laws (state / municipal) usually default to treating everything as a criminal offence (DRMC 1-13) and enumerating what isn't (DRMC 54-4). You can be arrested when you commit a crime -- that is a criminal act, and infractions aren't (CRS 16-3-102 "A peace officer may arrest a person when: [...](b) Any crime has been or is being committed by such person in his presence") (DPOM 204.05.2.a "No individual will be jailed on misdemeanor traffic charges, including D.U.I., unless one of the following criteria is met [...]").

      CRS is very clear in defining the scope of rules in title 16, I'm not making it up: "This code is intended to provide for the just determination of every criminal proceeding." (CRS 16-1-103). An infraction is not a crime, thus 16-3-102 does not apply, and the police operations manual (DPOM) clearly restates that.

      Of course other jurisdictions may vary.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    20. Re:Just say by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 2

      IAAL.

      Are you a criminal defense attorney that defends traffic violations? I'm going to guess that you are not, because most of what you wrote disagrees with the advice given by experts in this area of law.

      Why advise a motorist to withhold consent to a search if the officer could just arrest him and perform the search anyway? Why would the officer even waste time requesting consent to search if it is not required? Why do many jurisdictions have a consent form for the motorist to sign that affirms his consent to the search?

      If the police can show probable cause (eg. if the officer detects the smell of marijuana emanating from the vehicle), no consent or warrant would be required. However, the article refers to traffic stops for minor moving violations (i.e. a Terry Stop. See Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S.Ct. 781 (2009), for those following along at home).

      A bit of advice: When you identify yourself as an attorney, and then proceed to dispense advice, you might consider first familiarizing yourself with the area of law that you are discussing. In failing to do so, you run a considerable risk of looking like a bit of an ass.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    21. Re:Just say by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      "Sorry officer, I don't have a cellphone"

      "Sorry Ziwcam, you just committed a felony."

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    22. Re:Just say by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1
      Yeah, ok dream on.

      In my experienced, they pulled me out of the car without saying a damn word to me, cuffed me and began searching it. They didn't even identify themselves as police officers, although they were wearing uniforms.

      Good luck if that's not captured on camera, it's your word vs theirs. And if you do get it on camera they'll either take it from you and destroy it or arrest you for wiretapping them.

      --

      Liberty.

  7. Encrypt it... by hawkingradiation · · Score: 2

    ...then use the DMCA. Instant justice.

    --
    Society use your Sciences
    1. Re:Encrypt it... by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Informative

      1201(e) exempts law enforcement.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:Encrypt it... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. but it doesn't exempt whoever manufactures the device or sells it to law enforcement...

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:Encrypt it... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      are you sure it applies to local governments? how local can a government be and still remain exempt? can it be sub-municipal government? can a member of a condominium board copy dvds in order to enforce bylaws of the said condominium? i am thinking that it only applies to the federal government. so michigan police is not exempt

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    4. Re:Encrypt it... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      1201(e) exempts law enforcement.

      No, the 1201(e) exemption does not apply to an illegal search. 1201(E) is taylored narrowly enough that law enforcement does not have a blank check, only certain law enforcement activities are exempt.

      (e) Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. - This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term ''information security'' means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.

    5. Re:Encrypt it... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      well, that's a question of what's a government. condominium board does have the power to create and enforce the bylaws. they can hire security guards who carry weapons and they can use those weapons as long as they don't violate the municipal, state, federal laws. there is no difference between them doing it and a city doing on city territory. but my whole point is that as long as you don't specify which granularity of government the law refers to, it must refer only to the government workers of the government which produced the law. here's a thing: you could buy out a small municipality and be its only official resident. at that point you'd have the power to make yourself a law enforcement officer of that municipality and its legislative branch. would you than be able to make laws allowing you to legally break copyrights? just because you, as a law enforcement officer, are required to do so by municipal laws (which you wrote)? i don't think that would fly. so the law must only apply to the federal law enforcement officers.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    6. Re:Encrypt it... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      would financial vulnerability fall under "vulnerabilities"? would a town's financially vulnerable library network be able to use this exemption store copies of dvds in order address their municipal-level financial vulnerability of the network?

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    7. Re:Encrypt it... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      would financial vulnerability fall under "vulnerabilities"? would a town's financially vulnerable library network be able to use this exemption store copies of dvds in order address their municipal-level financial vulnerability of the network?

      Only if they are lawfully authorized to do so. The DMCA 1201(e) provides an exemption to the anticircumvention provisions; it doesn't provide an exemption to copyright law.

    8. Re:Encrypt it... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Wow, I never thought about that. Interesting. So the idea is: if (while defending) you get the evidence excluded, then it becomes evidence to use in a counter-attack.

      I'm skeptical that it can really work, though, or we would have seen historical examples. If a cop comes into your house and takes some things illegally, once these get excluded, I've never heard of them being successfully prosecuted for plain old theft. Or kidnapping. But theft and kidnapping are exactly what cops do -- if their actions are not lawfully authorized. The whole point of government is to have an entity that is empowered to do things that would otherwise be illegal. In cases where it turns out they weren't really authorized, I don't think I ever hear of them being prosecuted under the laws that outlaw those things.

      Dirty Harry is mad that a scumbag got off on a technicality; he isn't scared that his illegal search somehow turned into a burglary charge against him. Why would DCMA be any different?

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  8. waste of money by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    Use of such a device on motorists would be a clear 4th amendment violation. Courts have ruled that police can only search for items that would relate/be evidence to the crime committed There is little chance your phone data is relavent to an illegal lane change.

    1. Re:waste of money by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      There is little chance your phone data is relavent to an illegal lane change.

      The police would presumably argue that they need the data to verify that you weren't distracted by using your phone when you made that lane change. Hence they need your call history, you text messages, all your photos and videos, etc... just in case.

    2. Re:waste of money by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      Use of such a device on motorists would be a clear 4th amendment violation. Courts have ruled that police can only search for items that would relate/be evidence to the crime committed There is little chance your phone data is relavent to an illegal lane change.

      I think the problem is if you get arrested, then the police have a right to search your person out of concern for their own safety (or something like this, I can't remember). I don't think this has been decided yet in the courts, but does such a search justified by physical safety allow the police to search the electronic contents of your phone?

    3. Re:waste of money by rhook · · Score: 2

      It has already been upheld that police can only search items that are in plain view during a traffic stop absent probable cause. What probable cause would they have to search your phone? Not to mention you can toss it in a glove box and at that point they will need a your permission, a warrant, or to impound the car in order to search it. I really hope the ACLU gives them the smack down in US Supreme Court over this.

    4. Re:waste of money by TRRosen · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not courts have ruled any search beyond what is viewable requires a warrant unless it relates to the crime in question. That is if you robbed a bank they can search for a gun. If your driving without a license they can't search anything.

    5. Re:waste of money by slinches · · Score: 1

      That's only true if they have a reason to suspect that you are in violation of a law specifically prohibiting the use of cell phones (which Michigan doesn't have*) or violated another traffic law with the use of a cell phone (i.e. distracted driving). Most of the time they don't have enough evidence to support a distracted driving charge and you'll receive a ticket for a specific violation like speeding or drifting across lane lines. This type of device, if used appropriately, could provide evidence in these cases. The problem is what qualifies as sufficient cause to warrant a search of a phone (and what the data security practices are)? I would think it would be the same as any other personal item like a laptop or briefcase. If it's in your hand with a half completed text on the screen, then sure. If it's in a pocket or even just sitting idle on the seat, then I would think it would be inadmissible as evidence.

      *From the michigan.gov traffic laws FAQ:

      Question: Is it against the law to talk on a cell phone while driving in Michigan?

      Answer: Michigan does not have a law specifically prohibiting cell phone use in a vehicle. A driver who becomes distracted by using a cell phone, and commits a traffic violation could be charged with careless driving, or with the specific violation, such as improper lane use, if they are drifting in and out of their lane.

      Some municipalities have recently enacted local ordinances that prohibit using a cellular phone while driving within their respective jurisdiction. Any municipality that establishes such an ordinance should post notification at their jurisdictional boundaries to alert motorists.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    6. Re:waste of money by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Glove box is a bad choice, because they are legally permitted to request license and registration, plus in much of the country insurance information. So if you've got any of those things in the glove box like many people do, they're still likely to see it as they do watch when you reach in their.

    7. Re:waste of money by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      In their what?
      What part of the police officer exactly are you reaching into and does it get you out of tickets?

    8. Re:waste of money by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I keep all paperwork in my wallet on purpose. Photocopies of course, originals are not necessary.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    9. Re:waste of money by ironjaw33 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely not courts have ruled any search beyond what is viewable requires a warrant unless it relates to the crime in question. That is if you robbed a bank they can search for a gun. If your driving without a license they can't search anything.

      So what you are saying is that the cops are flaunting this device about with the express intent of using it illegally (most of the time)?

    10. Re:waste of money by Entropius · · Score: 1

      It turns out that simply being within 50 miles of the US-Mexico border (where lots of people live) is "probable cause" (which is bullshit).

    11. Re:waste of money by rhook · · Score: 1

      And just what PC do they have to remove the phone? It is not illegal, it is not committing a crime. Hell, you can have it on the passengers seat under a newspaper, courts have ruled that if the police have to move something out of the way to reveal something else that it is a search and thus falls under the 4th Amendment.

    12. Re:waste of money by rhook · · Score: 1

      Only if it's US Customs/Border Patrol stopping you. And it's 100 miles not 50. I'm actually surprised that this has not been ruled as unconstitutional. That radius also extends from every port of entry, not just the border. So any international airport in the middle of country, far away from our international border, starts that radius again.

    13. Re:waste of money by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This is not about lane changes... this is about getting your porn, and seeing if any possible/known criminals/druggies are in your contact lists.

    14. Re:waste of money by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks. I knew it was 50 because all of the checkpoints I'm familiar with (in southern Arizona) are within 50 miles of Mexico.

      And that's absurd. I bet that covers the homes of 90% of citizens.

    15. Re:waste of money by rhook · · Score: 1

      They can ask you anything they want, doesn't mean you have to comply. Same as you can refuse to allow them to search your car on a whim.

    16. Re:waste of money by rhook · · Score: 1

      The ACLU said that it covers 2/3rd of the population. Most of the citizens of the US now live in a "Constitution Free Zone".

      http://www.frtv.org/2010/06/constitution-free-zone-border-patrol-security-search-and-seizure-laws/

    17. Re:waste of money by epee1221 · · Score: 1

      And of particular relevance to this article: all of Michigan is included in the orange section.

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    18. Re:waste of money by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      In recently heard a news report that a court recently (here in California) now decided that a cop has the right to manually search through your cell phone during a traffic stop without a warrant. So in effect, this device does the same thing, but is faster, more thourough, and copies the data more perfectly than information transcribed from the phone to a notepad by hand. If a court already ruled manually searching through a cell phone, do you think they will not allow this device? http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/ca-court-rules-smartphones-can-be-searched-wi

    19. Re:waste of money by slinches · · Score: 1

      That article brings up a good point, but I don't think it really applies here. It indicates that any personal belongings (including phones, laptops, etc.) would be searched after an arrest. For civil traffic violations I would think that it would be treated the same as a glove box, trunk, laptop or any other closed container or device. Unless there's blatantly obvious evidence that it played a significant role in the traffic violation, it would only be subject to plain sight inspection.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    20. Re:waste of money by rhook · · Score: 1

      They can ask you anything they want, doesn't mean you have to comply.

      You do have to comply. If there is an item in your car in plain sight then and there, and an officer orders you to give it to them, you cannot refuse.

      You do not have to consent to a search, but you cannot interfere, or refuse to follow orders too.
      If the officer asks you to give him something, and you refuse, the crime of so-called disorderly conduct has been committed.

      You have really been brainwashed by the state, you only have to follow lawful orders. If an officer removes something from your car that is considered a search, unless you give consent it is not a legal search unless something illegal is in plain sight.

      The officer can legally seize any item he happens to see, if there is suspicion it could contain evidence of a criminal act; which is especially likely to happen if an unusual or out of place item is seen, such as a phone hidden in a compartment, or...

      No an officer cannot seize anything he wants, he also cannot seize an item because he believes that it may contain evidence of an as of yet unknown crime, that is known as an illegal fishing expedition. When an officer stops a vehicle he is only investigating the crime for which he pulled you over for (a traffic violation), this cannot be used as a pretext for searching your vehicle unless something illegal is in plain sight.

      If the officer happens to see anything he suspects to be a gun/weapon in your glove box when you open it to get out registration; an even more inconvenient (for you) response is likely, Hint: you won't be allowed to be the one rummaging around in the glove box.

      And unless there actually is a firearm in the glove box the police cannot seize anything, they'd also better be able to articulate pretty damn well why they believed there was a firearm in that glove box since they will be drawing on you at that point (use of deadly force). People like you are the kind that police love, you'll let them violate your rights, the whole time believing that they have authority to do whatever they want. In fact you'll even give your consent, at which point it becomes a voluntary search. Do not believe the police when they say things like "we're going to search your car, you might as well cooperate", if they had PC to search your car they wouldn't be asking for permission.

      Here are some videos that you should watch.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk

      http://www.youtube.com/user/FlexYourRights

    21. Re:waste of money by rhook · · Score: 1

      You are wrong about resisting an officer, there is plenty of case law that says that you can use up to and including deadly force to resist an illegal arrest. Case in point, Bear Lincoln.

      http://www.albionmonitor.com/rv/rv-background.html

    22. Re:waste of money by mysidia · · Score: 1

      You are wrong about resisting an officer, there is plenty of case law that says that you can use up to and including deadly force to resist an illegal arrest.

      You're missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you are ultimately vindicated or not, that is small comfort.

      If the officer shot you dead (illegally); the average person won't care that it was decided they were innocent because the officer's actions were ultimately found illegal when they were brought before the court.

      If you are arrested and charged with a crime for not cooperating You still spent some time in jail; even if the court decides you were innocent and clears you of all the charges you still spent that time in jail.

      What's so hard to understand about this? Many officers believe they are above the law, and will arrest you and charge you, even if you will ultimately be vindicated, you still suffer as a result of not cooperating.

      And it is not as if the court will reward you or 'make it worth your while' for having spent those days in a jail cell, before you were able to challenge the invalid charges on the basis that the arrest/actions of the officer were supposedly illegal.

      There will probably (in most cases) be no action against the officer, either.

    23. Re:waste of money by rhook · · Score: 1

      Many officers believe they are above the law, and will arrest you and charge you, even if you will ultimately be vindicated, you still suffer as a result of not cooperating.

      Well for one thing the police do not have the power to charge you, that is up the the District Attorney. I also guarantee you that if you know and assert your rights that you will not be illegally arrested in 99.999% of encounters with the police if you are not breaking the law. You see, the police know that the citizens who know what their rights are also quite likely know what 42 USC 1983 says, those officers do not want to be held personally liable for their actions. Everything you have been saying is exactly what the police want you to think, it means that you will be a good little sheep.

  9. it's a trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am currently rigging a phone that has an unusually high power output on the incorrect USB contacts. I will keep it in my car. Is it my fault their little toy let the smoke out?

    1. Re:it's a trap by rhook · · Score: 1

      That could be considered a booby trap by the DA, I wouldn't risk it. You'll especially be in trouble if your device causes injury to any of the officers.

    2. Re:it's a trap by DavidRawling · · Score: 1

      "This is not a phone. It has been modified internally so that I can use it for . Do you understand?"

    3. Re:it's a trap by DavidRawling · · Score: 1

      FFS. "so that I can use it for {another tech-buzzword-filled purpose}". Damn < and >

    4. Re:it's a trap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The LCD backlight voltage should be a good choice for the alternative wiring...

    5. Re:it's a trap by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That was my first idea, too -- what happens when a 1500 mAh battery discharges into the data pins in 2 seconds? While smoking one of their multihousand dollar devices sounds like a good idea, I'm sure it would cause other problems..

      A better idea is a device that mimics the data protocol of the phone model it represents but instead outputs 1000 or more times of data, ideally canned data, like copies of the constitution, video of the Rodney King beating, etc

    6. Re:it's a trap by beej · · Score: 1

      Play your cards right, and you can get them to pay for a new phone, too. ;-)

    7. Re:it's a trap by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      That was my first idea, too -- what happens when a 1500 mAh battery discharges into the data pins in 2 seconds? While smoking one of their multihousand dollar devices sounds like a good idea, I'm sure it would cause other problems..

      A better idea is a device that mimics the data protocol of the phone model it represents but instead outputs 1000 or more times of data, ideally canned data, like copies of the constitution, video of the Rodney King beating, etc

      Fun idea but the designers would be stupid to have not thought of this: optocouplers, current-limiting resistors, and ESD-protection structures are routinely put on device inputs/outputs intended for consumer usage, especially in industrial settings where the devices are expensive and expected to be used by inexperienced operators. I design stuff like this at work, and the chips and systems we make can handle thousand-volt spikes and have car batteries shorted across the leads: they don't draw enough current to get hurt and they have high(ish) voltage diodes to protect them from getting zapped through casual handling. If you can jam several kilovolts down that data line then you can probably do some damage, but then you're carrying something somewhat dangerous to you and any accessory you plug it into as well.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    8. Re:it's a trap by Mr_Plattz · · Score: 1

      Why destroy there device? How long will it be until someone finds a way to transfer everyone's locally stored data off there device?

    9. Re:it's a trap by tibit · · Score: 1

      If the copier device is competently designed, it'll have ESD protection on the inputs and it won't as much as wink when wired to the LCD backlight inverter's output. For all I know, it will withstand a cellphone's backlight inverter's output on the USB data or power pins indefinitely.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:it's a trap by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Fun idea but the designers would be stupid to have not thought of this: optocouplers, current-limiting resistors, and ESD-protection structures are routinely put on device inputs/outputs intended for consumer usage, especially in industrial settings where the devices are expensive and expected to be used by inexperienced operators. I design stuff like this at work, and the chips and systems we make can handle thousand-volt spikes and have car batteries shorted across the leads: they don't draw enough current to get hurt and they have high(ish) voltage diodes to protect them from getting zapped through casual handling. If you can jam several kilovolts down that data line then you can probably do some damage, but then you're carrying something somewhat dangerous to you and any accessory you plug it into as well.

      ESD is designed to protect against normal static discharges though. Gas discharge tubes would survive but semiconductor based protection tends to fail in a short which would render the device inoperable anyway. Resistors usually fail open and capacitors usually fail closed also causing a device failure at least as far as the I/O port goes. I have blown out RF receivers before (without even a direct connection) where either the failure was a shorted ESD protection diode which protected the first RF stage or where an ESD protection diode was not used the failure was the first RF stage instead. The input bandpass filter was not a factor since these were in-band overloads.

      I guess the best protection designs I have done all involved ESD protection followed by a semiconductor cascode which could handle continuous overloads and included fold-back current limiting. They would survive at least 10 times the machine or human ESD model as well as direct connection to a 120/240/277 volt AC power circuit but were not low level high speed interfaces which usually just have shunt ESD protection and mild overload protection if any. I am certain that a small capacitive discharge circuit would easily destroy most consumer and industrial low level interface designs. The protection is intended against accidental static discharge and not against deliberate malice.

  10. And the simple solution is... by NoxNoctis · · Score: 1

    Don't get stopped by the police in Michigan. If that's not possible, phone out of view. They may be trying to skirt around the 4th Amendment by slurping the phone data, but they can't search your car (for your phone) with PC or a warrant. And I'm sorry, but "most people have a cellphone so I'm going to find yours" is not PC for a search.

    --
    "You're awefully cute, but unfortunately for you, you're made of meat."
    1. Re:And the simple solution is... by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      I have trouble believing that these high-end forensic products are used exclusively in Michigan.

    2. Re:And the simple solution is... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      A better solution is just stay out of Michigan. I'm sure there are at least 49 better states you can visit.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    3. Re:And the simple solution is... by Hatta · · Score: 3, Informative

      All it takes is a K9 officer to fake a "tell" on your car, and they can search you. Cops lie about probable cause all the time.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:And the simple solution is... by causality · · Score: 2

      All it takes is a K9 officer to fake a "tell" on your car, and they can search you. Cops lie about probable cause all the time.

      Which is why all searches should require both that another citizen (who is not a cop) has accused you of a crime and that a judge has issued a warrant. No matter what they see or how suspicious they think it is. They keep abusing this power to the point where they don't deserve to have it.

      If that means a few more criminals get away with it, so be it. I consider my government to be far more dangerous than a few individual criminals. I'd be happy to take my chances with this scenario. I'd rather criminals be deterred by things like conceal-carry permits than the possibility of essentially random police searches.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:And the simple solution is... by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      If that means a few more criminals get away with it, so be it. I consider my government to be far more dangerous than a few individual criminals.

      No, no, no. Don't you know that there's a 100% security solution? If we put everyone in prison, then our streets will be totally safe!

  11. Product link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check out the specs on these things:
    http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products.html
    "Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags" and the list just goes on and on.

    So, can anyone buy one of these? If it's legal for police, then...

    1. Re:Product link by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 2

      Yes, but they cost $544,680.

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    2. Re:Product link by dlt074 · · Score: 2

      these's nothing classified about them... i didn't think they were all that cool when i was trained on them. maybe i was not paying enough attention. at the time i doubted their ability to do what they said. most military systems are over hyped and under perform.

      too many people consenting to these un Constitutional tactics... less submitting and more making them take it by force I say. it's one thing to take when there is no fight from the subject. another all together when you have to worry about resistance and possibly getting your head blown off.

    3. Re:Product link by s0litaire · · Score: 1

      Now where's LUKS or TrueCrypt for Android...?
      Wonder how good the Honeycomb Full Disk encryption is...

      --
      Laters Sol "Have you found the secrets of the universe? Asked Zebade "I'm sure I left them here somewhere"
    4. Re:Product link by multisync · · Score: 1

      So, can anyone buy one of these? If it's legal for police, then...

      I don't see why not. I've got one at work. I'm sure any phone dealer would use one to copy people's contacts from their old phone to the new one on the spot.

      It's just a tool. It's the cops that are turning it in to something criminal.

      And I agree with the comments above to encrypt the data on your mobile devices.

      --
      I don't care why you're posting AC
    5. Re:Product link by MirthScout · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this mean that the devices that this works on have some pretty serious security vulnerabilities?
      The vendors should fix them. Probably won't, but definitely should.

    6. Re:Product link by wwphx · · Score: 1

      What I'm curious about is how effective this device is against an encrypted Android OS phone, I'm assuming it could suck out the encrypted file volume and it would have to be cracked separately. It looks like it can read all of the supposedly secure Blackberries, but it looks like some of the Microsoft OS phones need IR or Bluetooth: so if you disabled those access ports, would that defeat this thing?

      I would say it sucks to live in Michigan, but how long until these things are deployed across the country?

      I'd also like to know that if I were to be pulled over and gave the phone to my wife (assuming me driving, she the passenger), could they still take and suck it?

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  12. Nokia E71 Full Device AES encryption? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Can it get past the AES128 full device boot encryption on my Nokia E71? The phone won't boot until you put the password in and both the memory card and internal memory are fully encrypted.
    http://discussions.europe.nokia.com/t5/Eseries-and-Communicators/E71-E66-Encryption-specifications/td-p/371392

    1. Re:Nokia E71 Full Device AES encryption? by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      It can if Nokia gives their encryption key to the manufacturer of the devices, can't it?

    2. Re:Nokia E71 Full Device AES encryption? by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      That's great. But soon all Nokia fones will be Windows Phone 7 with a backdoor for police conveniently built in.

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
    3. Re:Nokia E71 Full Device AES encryption? by rhook · · Score: 1

      That only works if every phone is using the same encryption key, somehow I doubt that is the case. It is more likely that your phone will generate a key when you enable the full device encryption, since this has to be generated when you select a pass phrase.

    4. Re:Nokia E71 Full Device AES encryption? by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      I meant encryption algorithm. Can't the manufacturer give them a sort of back-door around the encryption/ (I'm honestly asking... not sure how the finer points of encryption work.)

    5. Re:Nokia E71 Full Device AES encryption? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Yes it will work, because right now your phone is currently in your pocket, fully powered up and decrypted.

    6. Re:Nokia E71 Full Device AES encryption? by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      Too lazy to look for it, but there was an article within the last few months about the cops phoning a computer manufacture to get the backdoor for the Full Disk Encryption for a drive he had. They gave it to them.

    7. Re:Nokia E71 Full Device AES encryption? by rhook · · Score: 1

      You obviously know nothing about AES. There is a reason the Dept. of Defense mandates its use for classified information.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard

      In cryptography, the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is a symmetric-key encryption standard adopted by the U.S. government. The standard comprises three block ciphers, AES-128, AES-192 and AES-256, adopted from a larger collection originally published as Rijndael. Each of these ciphers has a 128-bit block size, with key sizes of 128, 192 and 256 bits, respectively. The AES ciphers have been analyzed extensively and are now used worldwide, as was the case with its predecessor,[3] the Data Encryption Standard (DES).

      AES was announced by National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) as U.S. FIPS PUB 197 (FIPS 197) on November 26, 2001 after a 5-year standardization process in which fifteen competing designs were presented and evaluated before Rijndael was selected as the most suitable (see Advanced Encryption Standard process for more details). It became effective as a Federal government standard on May 26, 2002 after approval by the Secretary of Commerce. It is available in many different encryption packages. AES is the first publicly accessible and open cipher approved by the NSA for top secret information (see Security of AES, below).

    8. Re:Nokia E71 Full Device AES encryption? by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      You obviously know nothing about AES.

      Yes. I thought I said that I at least don't understand the finer points. That's why I asked.

      But I don't see anything in your linked article which says that a combined manufacturer/implementer cannot implement a backdoor of some kind. It says is is secure against attacks, but what about subversion?

      Please feel free to tell me otherwise, because I do not know. That is why I am asking.

    9. Re:Nokia E71 Full Device AES encryption? by rhook · · Score: 1

      The algorithm is a standard, they wouldn't be able to advertise those devices as having AES if they modified it. They also wouldn't be able to sell their phones to the government if they added a backdoor of some sort.

  13. F$%K That! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    That's nice and all...
    But at what point are all these spineless citizens going to stand up and say 'enough of this shit!'

    You know what would be even nicer? To be able to go about my daily life without some jackboot thinking he has any right whatsoever so look at any of my belongings on the spot.

    In fact, here is a deal for the 'police'. Immediately allow full and public access to ANY of your dash cams, at any moment, by request. You are supposed to be serving the public, so it would be nice of us to be able to know that you are competently performing your job, and not just taking your word for it. You know, 'trust but verify'. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you should have nothing to worry about. Right? That is what you are relying on in order to justify this intrusion into peoples personal lives, isn't it?

    1. Re:F$%K That! by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Poor AC. Too bad outrage doesn't matter as much as it used to.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:F$%K That! by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Just get into the habit of wiping your phone whenever you get pulled over. Sure, you might lose something from today, but you definitely won't be incriminating yourself. And, perhaps, cell phone manufacturers will provide a new service, "back up my phone then wipe it", for just this circumstance. (Or, a "constant backup" option.)

      This is similar to the decision I saw ICQ make back in the 90s when the US said "no collecting information from anyone under 13!" in a law. ICQ added to its terms and agreements, "You cannot use our service if you are under 13."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  14. Lock down your phone by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    Looking through the manual, the device can read data through bluetooth, cable, or SIM card. It also requires an app installed for smartphones other than Symbian and Blackberries. Those running CDMA phones with bluetooth off and a password lock activated should be safe(r) from this machine.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Lock down your phone by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Those running CDMA phones with bluetooth off and a password lock activated should be safe(r) from this machine.

      Officer: Ok, give me the password to the phone, now.

      You: No

      Officer: Tell me the password, or you are going to jail.

  15. yes, but do they archive that data? by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    yes, but do they archive that data? what do they do with that data? would that data be later used against you in a different case?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:yes, but do they archive that data? by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

      All data is archived somewhere. Data is sexy. No one in authority can resist troves of data for long.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:yes, but do they archive that data? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      They must archive the data, they need it for trial or to find more evidence. Everything the police do is a fishing expedition to look for evidence of crime, it's what they do. It's only a matter of how far we'll let them pry, not if.

    3. Re:yes, but do they archive that data? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      Data is sexy.

      Tasha? Is that you?

    4. Re:yes, but do they archive that data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Forensic examiner here. We keep everything. Forever. Unless we get a court order to destroy some information. Which has happened once in 9 years.

    5. Re:yes, but do they archive that data? by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      All data is archived somewhere.

      Not true. Any data you explicitly want to back up won't be archived. Seems to be a rule of computing.

      The solution: automatically back up all data on your phone -- that will guarantee that no archives of that data will exist, anywhere.

  16. Remember when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Americans wouldn't put up with this Soviet crap?

    1. Re:Remember when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was anti-Soviet crap when we did it before to hunt down the red menace. Now we do it to hunt down the terrorists and drug dealers.

    2. Re:Remember when... by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      I don't think you know what liberal means, gun control is illiberal.

    3. Re:Remember when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No?

      Are you talking about after ww2 when mccarthyism was rampant and filthy commies could be persecuted on no evidence?

      Or perhaps ww1 when protesting the war got you sent to jail?

      The civil war eras where people were lynched for supporting emancipation?

      Soon after the revolution where British sympathizers were branded traitors and the witch hunt that ensued?

      I don't know where you live, but in the real world crazy shot like this has always happened.

    4. Re:Remember when... by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      No. When was that?

    5. Re:Remember when... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      No. When is this miraculous time you are talking about?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Remember when... by Raul+Acevedo · · Score: 1

      Remember when Americans wouldn't put up with this Soviet crap?

      Nope.

      --
      In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
    7. Re:Remember when... by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      Back when you fought the Soviet English Empire?

  17. Won't work on mine... by ironjaw33 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Neither of the articles are clear about this, but from the picture, I assume that the "snooping" device actually has to be physically connected with the phone via USB. I hacked my Nexus One to enable USB host mode, which effectively disables client mode. Any connected device won't be able to mount my SD card or onboard storage.

  18. Is it even real? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Is this device even real or could it be a fake like the expensive handheld detector where you inserted a polaroid? How about all the money the feds paid to the guy who claimed Al Queda was broadcasting hidden messages and only his software could decode it? Just saying'.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  19. CAN is not the same as ARE by Obfuscant · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    What an outrageous summary. Even the FA it is based on.

    The title of the story says they ARE doing this. The body of the article gives NO evidence that they are doing it, just that they have a box with the capability to read a cell phone in a short period of time.

    Yes, so what if the CAN do it? They should be able to do it when it is necessary and legal. If they find a dead body and a cellphone in the pocket, they should be able to get data from it as fast as possible. That means the device should be with the troopers, not locked up in the office where it would take time to get it where it is needed.

    Nothing in this article even begins to show that they are doing it to random people on traffic stops. It's just pure hypothesis and nonsense. If the ACLU had evidence it is being used illegally, then they would be suing already. Someone would have been the subject of a search and someone would have reported it to them.

    1. Re:CAN is not the same as ARE by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      And the ACLU will surely do that as soon as their FOIA request is fulfilled. Oh wait ... its being stonewalled I forgot.

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
  20. Freedom is a fickle thing by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Should this be allowed to stand, traffic stops will become a new tool for police to conduct what would in any other context be considered illegal suspicionless searches. It's bad enough they can do this at the border for reasons unrelated to airline security, but now they want to get away with it anywhere in the country.

    When citizens take freedom for granted it becomes way too easy for the government to take those freedoms away. It's also way too easy to forget the sacrifices of generations past and sit idly by as the government flushes people's freedom down the toilet.

    --
    "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    1. Re:Freedom is a fickle thing by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Should this be allowed to stand,

      Should WHAT be allowed to stand? This unsupported allegation? That's all you are dealing with here. The article says they CAN do something, not that they ARE doing it.

      They have GUNS, too. They CAN shoot you. They have nightsticks they CAN whack you on the head with. They have a device they CAN read your cellphone with during a traffic stop.

      When the ACLU or anyone else provides even a shred of evidence that they ARE doing this, then you can rant and moan and rave about how awful it is. Otherwise, you're wasting a lot of energy over nothing.

      ... what would in any other context be considered illegal suspicionless searches.

      In this context, too, Adrian. That's why the ACLU would already be suing if they were taking place.

    2. Re:Freedom is a fickle thing by KhabaLox · · Score: 2

      Should this be allowed to stand, traffic stops will become a new tool for police to conduct what would in any other context be considered illegal suspicionless searches.

      From what I hear (from Leo Laporte on This Week in Tech podcast), the police can already request (for a nominal fee) many data from your cell phone carrier. Data such as geolocation, time of phone call and number called are not considered "content" like an actual phone conversation is, and thus have a much lower hurdle as far as the law goes.

      See these two Ars Technica articles for more info, including this gem:

      Soghoian describes how "the government routinely obtains customer records from ISPs detailing the telephone numbers dialed, text messages, emails and instant messages sent, web pages browsed, the queries submitted to search engines, and geolocation data, detailing exactly where an individual was located at a particular date and time."

      I don't see this new tool as that big a boon to cops from the standpoint of normal folks. I can see the cops wanting it to get this data from phones who's number or carrier they don't know, for example pre-paid phones used by drug dealers. That said, I think this is all an outrage and they should reverse the 2005 ruling. Having a smartphone has some very serious drawbacks.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    3. Re:Freedom is a fickle thing by superwiz · · Score: 1

      it would be ironic if it were true. it isn't.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  21. Any GPL'ed Software On it? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    This thing seems to read quite a few different filesystems and has lots of connectivity options. I supposed that could all be hacked up from scratch, and I didn't see any GPL'ed software on their website.

    Who has access to one of these things to do a dump?

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Any GPL'ed Software On it? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Won't work, there are laws that make it legal for government employees to violate copyright law if required in the course of their jobs.

  22. Cellebrite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    List of supported phones:
    http://www.cellebrite.com/ufed-support-center/ufed-supported-phones.html

    Looking at the phone data extraction tutorial, it doesn't seem to be anything fancy or use any secret backdoors or anything to get data. Requires putting the phone in data connection mode. I have my phone default to Charge Only when connected, and they can't make me unlock it for them. And since I'm on Verizon, there's no SIM. If they have access to the a SIM they can easily get whatever is stored on that, which is pretty much nothing on more complex phones. They can also clone the SIM id, which let's them unlock phones which use a SIM lock, which I assume is what they mean by "defeat password protections"

    Anyway, this is a grave abuse of power. Unless I see a warrant, I'm not letting them touch my phone. I'm from Michigan and am quite bothered by this. I mean. Seriously. What the frak.

  23. Power that can be abused will be abused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If more people would file these lawsuits against officers who violate their rights the practice would end very quickly.

    No, those "trouble makers" would be marked and "eliminated" as quickly as possible. Imagine the dispatcher decides to ... "accidentally" forget for a few minutes that you called for help when someone is invading your home, or the patrol car that has been dispatched decided to ... take the "scenic route" to your home while you're being robbed at gun point.

    No, I don't have any faith in the legal system, from police up to the supreme court.

    1. Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Police couldn't be there in time anyways. For those situations, you're better be prepared to defend yourself.

    2. Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. by dlt074 · · Score: 1

      and you should rightfully be skeptical of them... which has me wondering why you're relying on them to protect your life in a home invasion.

    3. Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. by hldn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      they can take their sweet time if they want, the dead criminal isn't going anywhere.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    4. Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      I think the scenario assumes the cops are already on the scene, "unofficially". If you try to defend yourself they will suddenly become very "official".

    5. Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Then what is the freaking point of having the thug force (apart from revenue raising) if they aren’t even going to protect you.

      They don't like when you ask that kind of question.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    6. Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It depends on where you live. They're damned fast here in Springfield If you want to see how fast they show up here, I live an a bad part of town and have journaled it.

      Insecure
      Alien Invader

      They may be corrupt, but they're professional. I've journaled their ignoring my rights as well, but I need to go to bed. Good night.

    7. Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      except it's the POLICE are the ones saying YOU don't need guns. Remember the FBI only allows proper "collectors" to have lots of guns.. Guys like Charles Heston ("Moses" and "Ben Hur".. fine upstanding citizen there)

      Since we're talking about Michigan, getting a carry license in the state used to be a police-pals-only club... until the courts said if you passed all the background checks you had a RIGHT to have one. Of course actually ask an officer and they'll tell you the same... they're just there to "file the paperwork" and "investigate". But that's not what the FBI, Homeland Security, NYPD sit in the legislature and say when they need more laws is it?

    8. Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. by rhook · · Score: 1

      Not true at all, most police want you to own firearms so that you can protect yourself. The FBI also has nothing to do with firearms, that would be the BATF, and you can buy as many as you want. You're also confusing those other agencies with the Brady Campaign, they're the ones who always push for "common sense gun laws". Common sense would be to enforce the ones we have and realize that criminals do not obey the law. However the truth is that the Brady Campaign does not want anyone to own firearms, except for some of them who not only own firearms but also have CCWs.

    9. Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Guys like Charles Heston ("Moses" and "Ben Hur".. fine upstanding citizen there)

      He also warned us that Soylent Green is people. And let us not forget his efforts to save humanity from The Family.

      You do realize how absurd it is to judge someone's character by their characters, right?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    10. Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. by MirthScout · · Score: 2

      Police are for filling out paperwork and investigating a crime that has already happened. They are not bodyguards. Except for rare coincidences when they happen to be present when a crime is committed they cannot protect anyone. In my experience, most police are well meaning people that try to help. People just need to keep their expectation of what the police should do in line with the reality of what is possible. The point of having them is to catch the people that have already commited crimes so that they don't commit more crimes and as a mild deterrent to others commiting crimes.

      People are responsible for their own protection.
      Remember... When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

  24. Don't talk to the police. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

  25. It's simple really by garcia · · Score: 1

    Officer: "May I search your car?"

    You: "No, you may not."

    Done.

    You should NEVER, EVER, EVER allow an officer of the law, under any circumstances what-so-ever, to search your person, your belongings, or your car. Clearly this includes your mobile phone as well.

    1. Re:It's simple really by Americium · · Score: 1

      Well after you are done paying $1000's in traffic violations, let me know if it was worth it. He could simply claim he thought you were texting, bam, probable cause.

    2. Re:It's simple really by Hatta · · Score: 2

      Doesn't mean they won't make up a reason to search you anyway.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    3. Re:It's simple really by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      Well after you are done paying $1000's in traffic violations, let me know if it was worth it. He could simply claim he thought you were texting, bam, probable cause.

      Yes, worth it.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:It's simple really by blincoln · · Score: 1

      "You should NEVER, EVER, EVER allow an officer of the law, under any circumstances what-so-ever, to search your person, your belongings, or your car. Clearly this includes your mobile phone as well."

      While this is a laudable ideal, how likely is it* to just result in being detained for a few hours while the cop gets a search warrant because obviously you have something to hide if you don't consent to a search?

      *Especially in certain Midwest states like Minnesota with rabid state troopers who pull over anyone with an out-of-state plate.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    5. Re:It's simple really by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Officer: "May I search your car?"
      You: "No, you may not."

      Saying no may mean that they decide to detain you, until they can get a warrant.

    6. Re:It's simple really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean they won't make up a reason to search you anyway.

      True, but that is a different line to cross, and one you want the cop to choose to go over, not willingly cross yourself.

      If you are not being detained, you have no reason to willingly allow a search.

      If you ARE being detained (for legit reasons or otherwise) then you have the backing of all the legal arguments for your rights being violated.

      If you willingly give up those rights, you have no leg to stand on later when things go down hill.

      If they are going to make up a reason to detain you, they still have to follow proper procedures to do so and search you. This leaves a trail to be followed by others to bring any wrong doing to light.

      Now if you are actually doing something wrong and illegal, and you just got caught and are basically screwed anyways, then yes you might want to consider making things easier for the police to avoid additional headache later.

      But if you honestly have done nothing wrong or illegal, you may be tempted to want to create any and all possible headache for the police. This however is a bad idea, you want to create the proper headache for them.
      Your goal should be to bring any wrong doing by the police to light. Not to be an asshole for assholes sake.

      No one likes a complete dick, even when they are right.
      This will only hinder you getting the proper help you will need dealing with any real abuses against you.

    7. Re:It's simple really by Stone2065 · · Score: 1

      Remember boys and girls... if they have to ASK, they don't have PC... which is WHY they ask. If they HAVE PC, they don't NEED to ask... just saying...

      --
      Stone
  26. encryption? by bizitch · · Score: 1

    Could this not be defeated with encryption? Is there something out there for Android?

    Every now and then, I get a fresh reminder of why I really hate police.

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
    1. Re:encryption? by Americium · · Score: 1

      My N900 can't do a full system partition encryption, which is very unfortunate. It stores my passwords for email in plain text. Is Android any better?

    2. Re:encryption? by Microlith · · Score: 1

      You can use truecrypt though. Bit of a hack, but it's possible.

    3. Re:encryption? by Americium · · Score: 1

      I thought truecrpyt on the N900 didn't encrypt the OS files, just your other folders and partitions.

  27. Siezure by Widowwolf · · Score: 1

    So if a cop takes your phone, what if you have corporate secrets on your phone, wheat if they were to misjack the machine into it and break it? I am wondering if this machine of theirs could void warranties..And wouldn't this be considered breaking encryption, which is same law against people who rip thier dvd's and get in trouble for it.

    --
    ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
  28. Re:Don't see a useful lawful purpose for this. by rhook · · Score: 1

    Plus, just load up the phone with non-incriminating data but just make it revolting or insulting to cops to review it. It's not like the guy who pulled you over is going to sit and review all of your 8gb+ of data, or be expected to.

    Load your phone full of mp3's then call the RIAA when the police "pirate" all that music. Problem solved!

  29. Re:defeat passwords? how? by rhook · · Score: 1

    AES-256 has been broken under some circumstances, last I checked AES-128 was considered to be more secure.

    http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/new_attack_on_a.html

  30. the police have the right to lie to me by poptones · · Score: 1

    let them prove I lied. "I don't recall saying that..."

    Fuck the Michigan State Police. Michigan is a hole anyway, no idea why anyone but a redneck or militia member would want to live there.

    1. Re:the police have the right to lie to me by s!lat · · Score: 1

      No, poptones is pretty much right. I've been stuck here for going on 34 years. Can't get out yet because I've got too much debt to handle and there's no jobs here to speak of. Michigan is not only a hole, it's a fucking hole.

      --
      It's a leather thing
  31. Re:There's an app for that (or there will be) by KhabaLox · · Score: 1

    I'm sure some smart folks will come up with a nice app that provides backup and an easily triggerable secure wipe.

    Which will be rejected from the App store thanks to the lobbying efforts of Police Unions and law makers. See also, DUI Checkpoint apps.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  32. forget ACLU by superwiz · · Score: 2

    Where is MPAA on this? This is a clear violation of copyright on videos held by video creators. And police are doing it without as much as a warrant? I assume MPAA will demand that Michigan police come into compliance and be fined $150K per instance of violation. Michigan police is not immune from FEDERAL copyright statues after all. In fact, if the phones are password protected, the police are also in violation of DMCA.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:forget ACLU by TriezGamer · · Score: 1

      Um, the MPAA isn't some wide-sweeping entity that cares about everyone's copyrights just because it is related to videos.

    2. Re:forget ACLU by superwiz · · Score: 1

      You have copyright on all content you produce as soon as you claim that copyright. You can register the content with the copyright office, but you really don't have to. In fact, those records would only be used if there is dispute as to who owns the copyright. Since there is no question as to who owns the copyright on the content produced by your phone, as soon as you claim that copyright it's yours. Moreover, since each instance of copyright violation carries huge damages and fines, I don't see any problem (but I am not a lawyer) with informing any policeman that you claim copyright on all content on the phone and explicitly forbid him from both copying and viewing that content. And at $150k per instance of copyright violation, I think you should have a pretty easy time finding a lawyer who'd sue the copyright infringing cops. Again, the copyright is yours. It's not like a patent. You don't need to have it approved in order for it to be yours. You just need to be the original creator.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:forget ACLU by superwiz · · Score: 1

      True. They only represent the interests of the copyright holders who are MPAA members. But since this would be a case deciding on the potency of copyright, I suspect they might want to weigh in with friend of the court brief. And I would suspect they would come on the side of the copyright holder. I am not a lawyer.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    4. Re:forget ACLU by superwiz · · Score: 1

      In fact the reason for $150k per violation is there to make sure that copyright infringement would not be just a bat that big guys are holding over the small guys. Such a large fine ensures that small guys can get adequate representation if their copyright is violated.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    5. Re:forget ACLU by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Really? Come on. MPAA is not a 'pro-copyright' organization, they are an organization that advocates for their members. If you are not a member (ie you do not pay dues) then you will get no interest from the MPAA. Protect your own copy rights.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:forget ACLU by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      The same could be said for any email on the phone. Text. Copyrighted by default.

      But the same could also be said re copyright of physical written evidence copied for the use of the prosecution and/or defense.

      I suspect copyright issues are held in abeyance as regards evidence in investigations. But I do not know.

  33. Re:defeat passwords? how? by budgenator · · Score: 1

    "A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections."
    Might not be able to defeat AES256 directly but it might be able to find your passwords.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  34. Crime Tool by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    Cell phones are a great tool for criminals to use in many circumstances. It sort of makes sense that government would need the ability to see what has transpired on a cell phone. This could go all the way upstream to finding terrorists and all the way down stream to people who take secret pics of others nude in a spa or dressing area. Maybe it is time for all of us to be a bit more open to the idea that others have very good reason to review the actions of us all just as we should have the ability to review their actions.
                Most people probably feel that a device that would catch their teen drag racing in the family car is a great idea. Less people would be happy about a device that phones a cop if they are driving drunk. I wonder how many people would be in favor of a device that is 100% reliable in discovering adultery in a spouse. Yet people should expect absolutely no right to do wrong no matter what their feelings.

    1. Re: Crime Tool by superwiz · · Score: 2

      People should expect no right to do what's illegal. People do have a right to do everything else. Adultery is not illegal. You must have us confused with Saudi Arabia or Iran.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    2. Re: Crime Tool by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is time for all of us to be a bit more open to the idea that others have very good reason to review the actions of us all just as we should have the ability to review their actions.

      You are probably the stupidest person ever born. If you want to bend over and take it up the ass from the "authorities", be my guest. Don't pull me into your complicity - how dare you speak for me. The Founding Fathers would spin in their graves upon hearing your treachery towards the fundamental raison d'etre of the US - personal freedom. Fucking rat bastard.

      --
      "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
    3. Re: Crime Tool by superwiz · · Score: 1

      It is in the eyes of the law. That's what "illegal" means. If you don't like the laws, try changing them. I'd love for you to be less anonymous while claiming that adultery should be illegal.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    4. Re: Crime Tool by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Bad things happen to people even when they are perfectly law abiding. That doesn't mean you don't have a right to do what's legal. It just means doing what you have a right to do might require some effort.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    5. Re: Crime Tool by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point I'm trying to make: you need to limit the powers that law enforcement officers have because law enforcement themselves cannot always be trusted to do the right thing, or even to follow the law themselves. (E.g. the many stories of police officers getting drunk and shooting out street lights, or beating up their wives and yet receiving no punishment for it because cops always look out for each other.)

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  35. Ponder this by TRRosen · · Score: 1

    Cops pull over a guy for drunk driving.

    They search his phone and find hundreds of pictures young girls both alive and deceased most of them mutilated. Turns out the guy is the biggest serial killer/pedophile history has known.

    Guy walks free as the search is ruled illegal as there was no probable cause to believe the phone contained any relevant evidence relating to the drunk driving arrest.

    Sloppy lazy police work has real consequences.

    1. Re:Ponder this by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Knowing he's guilty would be sufficient for the police to justify watching him and digging for bodies. The police don't need a court order unless someone objects, and I expect unless he's got a hog farm that there is evidence not on his land.

    2. Re:Ponder this by TRRosen · · Score: 2

      You think everybody's dumb enough to file a motion to suppress right away. You let the cops go out dig up the bodies and collect all the evidence then you file. Everything is excluded. Unless the police can convince a judge the would have eventually looked under his pool with a scanning radar.

    3. Re:Ponder this by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      I'm not sympathetic to unconstitutional searches of phones, computers, cars, vaginas, houses, etc, but you need to think that through a little more.

      Scenario A: police find evidence that a man is a serial killer, but they are unable to use it (fruit of the tainted tree or whatnot).

      Scenario B: police sit around with their thumb up their ass while a serial killer rampages with reckless abandon.

      In scenario A, they can still find untainted evidence and have a starting point.

      In scenario B, their thumbs smell like shit.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:Ponder this by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Given that the number of ex-wives of cops is greater than the number of serial killers by several orders of magnitude, which do you think this technology will be used for more often: a) Finding serial killers based on their phone data, or b) Harassing ex-wives new boyfriends by dumping their phone number from ex-wives phones?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  36. Bypasses passwords ? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't that alone be a crime?

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  37. Probably not by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The reason is if someone knows how to deal with it, as he clearly does, and has shown a propensity for being someone who will push back, as he clearly has, then you are just inviting trouble doing that. They start pulling him over all the time and doing searches on trumped up pretexts, and they wind up on the wrong side of a federal civil rights lawsuit.

    They probably know well enough to leave him alone.

  38. Very true by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    However I'll give a bit of credit in that the police are clearly stonewalling the ACLU and why are they doing that if they've not been doing something they shouldn't with the devices?

    The FOIA request is legit, they aren't even contesting that. They are just trying to set a price so high the ACLU will go away, a price much higher than it actually costs to process the request.

    If there was nothing going on, if they were using these as they should (as in when there is reason to suspect someone is using their cellphone for illegal things) then I can't see why they wouldn't turn over the records for a reasonable fee. Dealing with FOIA requests is part of the job at a public agency.

    That they are stonewalling says to me they've been misbehaving.

    1. Re:Very true by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      That they are stonewalling says to me they've been misbehaving.

      That not a single person has come forward and said they have done this, not even a single defendent in a criminal case based on copied cellphone data, says to me that this is a tempest in a teapot with a lot of assumptions and not much else. It's an excuse for people to rant about the cops and tell their own horror stories, but isn't much in the way of news.

      The ACLU doesn't need to wait for the FOIA information to file a lawsuit. It needs to wait for someone to have done something wrong. That's all. We don't even have the excuse that maybe the ACLU hasn't heard about the situation yet. They clearly know about it and haven't found anything to do.

  39. Re:Full Phone Encryption? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    You can't generally "bypass" encryption. You either break it through some exploit or by brute force, or you don't. A box like that doesn't have the grunt to brute force it, so unless every phone that supports encryption has an exploit or back door that we don't know about, the device will only see gibberish.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  40. Minor traffic violations... by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering if the 'Minor Traffic Violations' in question are in fact stops for using the cell phone while driving, and the data gathered is simply to show that the phone was in use at that time.

    That is, before the inevitable scope creep, but my guess that's the reason they aquired these devices.

    1. Re:Minor traffic violations... by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      The linked Popular Mechanics article raises this as a possible rationale for seizing the phone, but also points out that it's not illegal to use a cell phone while driving in Michigan.

  41. manufacturer assistance by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    Given the huge range of phones in existence and that it bypasses passwords, this device must have the active cooperation of your phone. The most likely source of such cooperation is from the cellphone provider. Given the number of secret laws, it's highly likely that there is a secret law requiring backdoor access to all cellphones sold in the USA, for the purpose of retrieving evidence (for terrorist cases, probably). I suggest that someone do a code audit of the android phones to find the backdoor code, and deal with it.

    1. Re:manufacturer assistance by Billlagr · · Score: 1
      Just quickly reading the overview on the actual Cellebrite page-

      Superior handset support - Over 3,000 handset models supported, with monthly software updates for newly released devices prior to carrier launch. The system includes more than 85 data cables for connecting 95% of all handset models worldwide. Cellebrite has exclusive carrier agreements and works directly with cellular phone manufacturers to receive pre-production handsets prior to retail launch

      Kinda implies, to me, that the manufacturers are allowing backdoors for this to work.

    2. Re:manufacturer assistance by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Given the huge range of phones in existence and that it bypasses passwords,

      Allegedly (this is a foreign issue ; I've not wasted my time by RTFA).

      this device must have the active cooperation of your phone.

      Plausible ; not proven, but plausible.

      So ... you get a phone from a non-American manufacturer. You guys have GSM over there, don't you?

      When the customs/ police start seizing imported phones ... then you know that they've noticed you.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  42. Police are humans too. by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    So I have to wonder: do they retaliate?

    Police are human too, and that means they have all the fallacies of human, including vindictiveness.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  43. Re:Full Phone Encryption? by Entropius · · Score: 1

    Any smartphone that you have root on offers full encryption by default.

    Sadly you don't get root on most of them.

  44. Re:Full Phone Encryption? by Kreplock · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering whether it would be able to capture phone storage thru USB to allow them to work on passwords/encryption later.

  45. Re:There's an app for that (or there will be) by Entropius · · Score: 1

    This is why Apple blows goats. There are other phones that don't have a gatekeeper for apps, no?

  46. Re:Apple claims its stuff is secure by Entropius · · Score: 1

    Physical access is root access only if you are allowed enough time and tools. Sony made the PS3 pretty hard to root without the right key; why can't smartphones be 1% as hardened?

  47. Under data treaty illegal vs Canadian/EU citizens by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Not only is this illegal in other states (e.g. WA) but it's specifically illegal under International Treaties enjoined by the US with the EU and Canada (NAFTA, FTA) which specifically give citizens of those countries the data protection rights they have in their countries.

    Information may want to be free, but if the Kinect tries to motion capture me, I've got a second amendment solution for it.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  48. Re:Full Phone Encryption? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    If it was really well done, traces of an encrypted file system could be detected. A message displayed, details stored and something injected?
    Send you on your way, and your pw is collected. Some time later, your phone is taken from you as part of new "random" issue needing a short time in a cell with your phone kept safe until your release.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  49. RMS by tessellated · · Score: 1

    In his rat-filled dungeon, behind a door with more locks than a major canal network, the Stallman of GNU lay back and grinned in the darkness.

    --
    'When the Going gets Weird, the Weird turn Pro.' - Hunter S. Thompson
  50. This thing will clone a SIM as well... by inject_hotmail.com · · Score: 1

    Very scary business, this is.

    Check the "tutorial"...chapter 6.

    http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-standard-kit/ufed-video-tutorial.html

  51. That's the whole point by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but I don't think it will be very long before some court says it's illegal.

    Just this year there was a court case re-affirming that I could get pulled over for a traffic ticket, and as long as there isn't anything visibly illegal in the car, I could have a file folder sitting on the seat next to me and the police could not legally so much as touch it, much less search it, unless I consented.

    Why should cell phones be any different?

  52. The truth by U8MyData · · Score: 1

    Are we that bad of a society that cops need to have a right not only to search our vehicles for something as simple as a broken license plate light (anyone watch COPS?) but now our own personal devices? It seems anymore the "law" is hunting for violations of one thing or another. Anymore it appears to me that everyone is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Has the axis of our country flipped?

    1. Re:The truth by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Many cops consider it their job to go fishing for things to charge you for. Take the cop that pulled me over for "Failure to signal for a left hand turn" when I was in the left-turn only lane, and he was immediately to my right (as in there was no physical way he could have seen my left turn signal!) No, I'm pretty sure I looked like I was enjoying myself too much in my Del Sol, so he thought he had to make something up as a pretext to pull me over AND block the left hand lane for 15 minutes in heavy traffic, thus greatly improving public safety. No, he didn't find anything so he didn't charge me with anything. But really, there must not be enough donut shops in Hillsboro, because the cops apparently don't have anything to do.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  53. Re:Apple claims its stuff is secure by phek · · Score: 1

    touchscreens however are unique as you can use designs as your password instead of having to enter characters.

  54. Re:What's the security on the cellebrite device li by phek · · Score: 1

    yeah, it would be interesting to inject some code into the device to cause it to tell phones to send all data it gathers to some email/website.

  55. Company phone? Good luck with that. by bacontaco · · Score: 1

    I'm sure my employer would have something to say about my password protected Blackberry (with probable HIPAA implications, since I work for a Healthcare company) being searched like this.

  56. Cognitive dissonance theory in action by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 3, Informative

    Related book on why so many police officers take to planting evidence and forcing inaccurate confessions:
        "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts"
        http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986
    "Why do people refuse to admit mistakes - so deeply that they transform their own brains? They're not kidding themselves: they really believe what they have to believe to justify their original thought.
        There are some pretty scary examples in this book. Psychologists who refuse to admit they'd bought into the false memory theories, causing enormous pain. Politicians. Authors. Doctors. Therapists. Alien abduction victims.
        Most terrifying: The justice system operates this way. Once someone is accused of a crime - even under the most bizarre circumstances - the police believe he's guilty of something. Even when the DNA shows someone is innocent, or new evidence reveals the true perpetrator, they hesitate to let the accused person go free. ,,,"

    And progressively that can lead police officers down a route of progressive desensitization where they start planting evidence on more and more people until they plant evidence on anyone they have any suspicions about...

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  57. Re:Full Phone Encryption? by Billlagr · · Score: 1

    Blackberry? On my BB there's an option, 'Encryption', and settings for device memory, strength, include contacts and media files, and if to include the SD card or not

  58. BUSTED: The Citizen's Guide to Surviving Police... by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

    ...Encounters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA echoes your advice.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  59. Would it.. by Billlagr · · Score: 1

    be able to pull data from a Blackberry, with the encryption turned on, and set to encrypt device memory, SD card, contacts and media files? And I don't just mean a password - the whole encryption shebang turned on (which it isn't by default, or at least wasn't on mine) I don't know what type of encryption the BB uses, but assuming that its a) something decent and b) no backdoors, wouldn't it severely limit what could be extracted? Maybe SIM card contents, but nothing from the device itself

  60. Information is power by failedlogic · · Score: 2

    The information on the phone alone is worth its weight in gold even if the police can't officially 'keep' it.

    The information on the phones could be very useful if you *cough cough* happen to pull over someone with a criminal background. Let's say there's some dealer you've been after. You pull him over. Hey, this is a 55 and you were going 56 maybe 65 or I don't really care you're getting pulled over. No charges or pressed but you don't care. You just want the damn phone. Now you have it.

    Now a detective or narc would now have a list of that dealer's network. Probably some clients calling him. And a whole miscellany of information that would be invaluable to a detective. Wether or not you believe police don't 'randomly' pull over people, this is all the motivator to do it.

    They probably don't care if they can legally keep the information. Or even care to use the information to build up a case. The information on that phone alone can open up a whole dragnet I won't even begin to write about. Keeping a digital copy of the info is probably not legal. But if a detective comes upon the information before they are notified they had to get rid of it and makes "mental notes" its going to be awfully hard to cook up a case proving the officer had or had not seen illegally obtained information.

    1. Re:Information is power by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

      Any dealer with any sense is going to learn to protect his info. It's only the common person who will be subject to shake-down.

    2. Re:Information is power by jlb.think · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what I thought, except I figured you could pull over some RANDOM pot smoker and then use his phone calls and text messages to figure out who he gets pot from. Most smokers have several hook-ups and copying their data would provide a treasure trove. People are dumber than you think, we think "if I did something illegal I'd never use a phone", but in real life most law breakers talk about their actions on the phone all the time. Sounds all good to stop the evil weed, but what happens when political views are criminal, and YOU, not joe-blow stoner, are pulled over and YOUR phone data endangers family and friends?

    3. Re:Information is power by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The only useful thing on the phone is photo and video, because they can already get a complete list of every number you have called or that has called you from your telco. Think about these things for just one half of one second, please.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Information is power by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      "The only useful thing on the phone is photo and video, because they can already get a complete list of every number you have called or that has called you from your telco."

      But they'll need some kind of probable cause or warrant to order the information from the telco. With this device they can bypass that requirement.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    5. Re:Information is power by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually they won't, they might need a warrant to dig but they can get your current data just by calling up and asking nicely. AT&T in particular is known to hand your data over with a smile. Presumably it's part of the bargain for being permitted to reform as Ma Bell Voltron.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  61. Actully, any lawyer can sue for that by unassimilatible · · Score: 3, Funny

    42 USC 1983 authorizes suits for deprivation of civil rights. Johnnie Cochran made a fortune doing it. Of course, police have qualified immunity from suit, so you sue the city., i.e., taxpayers, for police misconduct.

    But you can't criminally prosecute police for every little misstep. Nobody would want to be a cop.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:Actully, any lawyer can sue for that by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      We're not talking about missteps. This isn't an officer forgetting to read you your rights or doing something wrong in the heat of the moment. We're talking about deliberate, willful and premeditated breach of a constitutional amendment.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Actully, any lawyer can sue for that by Hatta · · Score: 1

      But you can't criminally prosecute police for every little misstep

      Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Isn't that what they like to say? I would have no problem stuffing our prisons with the thugs.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  62. Oh please! by unassimilatible · · Score: 1, Funny

    Do you get imprisoned for making mistakes at work? This would be a great way to ensure you had no cops, or cops that don't do anything for fear of prison! Should the Miranda officers have gone to prison for following the law at the time, only to have new law created out of the ether?

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:Oh please! by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      "Mistake" my ass. I have friends who work in Illinois state government. Ethical lapses can result in firing and, indeed, imprisonment if the "ethical lapse" is bad enough. Former Governor Ryan is in prison for his "ethical lapse", and former Governor Blago is headed there.

      I agree with the GP. Violate a citizen's rights, go to fucking prison.

      Those of us in the private sector can kill with impunity. Public sector employees cannot. Cops have great power, with power comes responsibility. Or should.

    2. Re:Oh please! by Mikkeles · · Score: 2

      If "ignorance of the law" is no excuse for me, then it should be so for those expected to enforce it.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    3. Re:Oh please! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

      I don't get to point a gun at people legally, stop random strangers on the street, and take them to JAIL either....

      With power comes responsibility. Law Enforcement has too much leeway to claim they "believe" a crime is committed. It used to take two witnesses, then one, now they demand your phone "just to be sure" you're not doing something bad.... If they want more power, the bar for being wrong has to go up proportionally.

    4. Re:Oh please! by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) These aren't "mistakes", they're blatant violation of Citizens' civil liberties. This is like calling the actions of the Nazi SS "simple mistakes".

      2) No, but I don't work for the government, nor do I carry a gun and get to shoot it at people who don't follow my orders. I'm a lowly employee of a private company, not someone in a position of authority within the government who has the right to take another person's life. If you're in a position of authority, then you have far more responsibility than anyone who isn't. If you can't handle that, then you should get another job.

    5. Re:Oh please! by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      If those "mistakes" involved breaking the law, yes. I'd be fired, and my details handed straight over to the police.

      That's sort of how the law works.

    6. Re:Oh please! by Fiznarp · · Score: 1

      I was with you until you played the Nazi card. It's way too easy to compare things to scary Nazis without really knowing what you're talking about. :)

    7. Re:Oh please! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's the thing that's bothering me about a lot of the stuff going on in our country now. Back in Nazi Germany, it was all well-organized, and all the direction came from the top. There was one madman, and a small group of other people, who ran the Nazi Party and called all the shots. If a local cop did something which abridged your civil liberties, it wasn't just him acting alone, or his department, or his municipality's mayor, it was policy for the whole country.

      What we're seeing in America now seems basically chaotic, like governments at all levels deciding to ignore laws and do things whatever way they feel like it, whether it's some municipal government deciding to make illegal red-light traps (by shortening yellow-light times below allowable standards to catch more "violators" and make more money, with local courts condoning these illegal actions), or a state government deciding to steal citizens' data during routine traffic stops, or the Federal government deciding to molest children. It's not just a few bad cops here and there though; as we see in this story, it's department or even state policy condoning or even directing these actions, but it doesn't seem to be coordinated. It's like the whole country is going crazy, and "fixing" it in one place (by electing better people or removing those in charge forcefully) won't fix it anywhere else because they whole thing is falling apart. Either that, or there's really some small group of people secretly in charge, and this two-party system is just a facade to keep us distracted from the real man behind the curtain.

  63. variety, and solutions. by man_ls · · Score: 1

    This must be happening with cooperation of the phone manufacturers, if the device is able to work with over 3000 models of phones and defeat password protection. Which phones aren't easily scanable?

    Whisper Systems offers a few applications for Android phones to mitigate the risk of this attack. TextSecure hooks and intercepts SMS and MMS messages, storing them locally encrypted (and offering transport-layer protection based on the OTR protocol to another Android handset using TextSecure), Red Phone to make end-to-end encrypted VoIP calls from one Android handset to another running the application, and WhisperCore to perform full system encryption for phones that support that feature.

    They're effective enough their author Moxie Marlinspike is harassed and his equipment seized every time he crosses the U.S. border, so I'd expect it's enough to keep "overly motivated" Michigan State Police out of the phone as well.

  64. No, most cities MUST pay legal fees by unassimilatible · · Score: 1

    Stop making up law. Nobody would ever be a cop if they had pay lawsuits. Officers have qualified immunity from lawsuit (plaintiff must show bad faith) and most cities must pay their legal fees/judgments under the municipal codes. I worked for LA's city attorney, in their police lit unit, so I know of what I speak. 42 USC 1983 doesn't ban cities or unions for paying legal bills (it would probably be a 10th Amendment violation of it did).

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
    1. Re:No, most cities MUST pay legal fees by rhook · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps you should brush up on the law and understand the legal meaning of "shall be liable"? Qualified immunity does not apply when you knowingly violate someones civil rights, it is only a protection when there is "good faith", furthermore there should be no such thing as qualified immunity since it goes against the equal protection part of the 14th Amendment. You see, police are no different from regular citizens, and as such they should have no special protections under the law.

      http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1983

      Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
      regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
      District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
      citizen of the United States or other person within the
      jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
      or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
      to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
      proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
      against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
      officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
      unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
      unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
      applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
      considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

      That says that they are personally liable, not the department that they work for, and not their union. Officers effectively lose all legal protection from both their department and their union when they have a USC 1983 civil rights lawsuit filed against them (these cases only move forward when there is no qualified immunity). However, should the officer win, they can recover legal fees from the plaintiff. I know LA thinks they make the law but they do not, they've been smacked down several times for trying to play by their own rules.

  65. Fourth Amendment? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    The fourth amendment does not apply in Michigan as 100% of the state is within the US constitution free zone. http://www.aclu.org/constitution-free-zone-map Thanks, G Dubya!

  66. What if they want political or informant data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What if you are a newspaper writer doing a big story on police corruption, and certain police want to find who is ratting so they can change some minds?
    Of course, if they did it through official channels like a warrant, then that might come back to haunt them. But a broken taillight search is innocuous right? Anyone can get stopped for those. And who is to know who got to see the data before it got back to the station.

  67. Re:Apple claims its stuff is secure by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Use Apple as an example, expect the example to be used further in discussion. Common sense, Mr. AC, this isn't trolling, despite the morons without a clue modding me as such.

    Despite it working for thousands of other devices, Apple touts security as a major part of its platform thing, with tools to help you stop thieves from getting your information.

    This little thing makes every bit of that advertising moot, and once the device itself gets out into the wild (and it will,) Apple and other companies trying to play the security bullshit marketing are going to end up eating crow.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  68. Reading comp fail, law fail by unassimilatible · · Score: 2

    Did you even read my post? I said qualified immunity requires the plaintiff show bad faith. It's very rare that a court finds this, and holds an officer liable.

    As for the second part, stop impersonating a lawyer. You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. Nothing in that section precludes a state or city from indemnifying a police officer (stop saying "department," cities pay lawsuits, not departments), and California law requires the city defend the police officer, and most local codes require the city to do so as well. And the city even has the discretion to pay punitive damages where bad faith has been found, and this authority has been upheld by the 9th Circuit.

    Again, lawyer impersonator, I've worked both sides of the bar in police civil rights cases. Your comments about LA are silly. The LA Muni Code requires the city pay damages of police officers, as do most cities, and this has been tested by federal courts, even in punitive damages (bad faith) cases.

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  69. Net neutrality is a regulation of a corporation by mykos · · Score: 1

    If you refused to let the government regulate corporations, your power bill in a four bedroom house would be $500 a month, your water bill would be $200 a month, your garbage would be $100 a month, and your taxes would go WAAAAAAAAAY up when the contractors who maintain your roads charge the government even more ludicrous sums of money than they already do.

    Corporations and government should keep each other in check, not collude against little people like you and me.

  70. Lie to the cop by William-Ely · · Score: 1

    If you get pulled over turn your ringer off and toss it under the seat. If the cop asks for it say you lost it recently.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  71. Damn... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    When you order a phone, you generally have some idea what you're going to wish it had in a year or two. With the Treo 180 it was storage. With the Treo 650 it was wifi. With the N900 it was processing power and RAM. But I got that last one wrong. It was actually full-disk encryption and "play dead" mode.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  72. _All_ data? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    What if I take the MiniSD card out of the phone first?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  73. Re:Why is this necessary... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    If you get pulled over for "driving while being a hot-looking young coed", cops would naturally want to check for phone for any nude photos (and make copies of course).

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  74. Re:Company phone? Good luck with that. by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    I'm sure your employer would have something to say about your storing HIPAA protected information on your cell phone, yes. And that something might just happen to be Donald Trump's well-known catch phrase, "You're fired!"

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  75. You know what they say... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    They used to say "Cops always have the best drugs". Now they say "Cops always have the best porn". I'm sure this won't be used to build up anybody's private collections...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  76. Re:Or get a dumb phone. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Or get two phones, one to hand over, one to use.

    Hey, those of us who wear glasses have stored a pair in their car for ages, now we just add a phone to the fold. Sure, the glove compartment gets filled, but hey...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  77. not so easy by r00t · · Score: 2

    A. They search you, being in a good mood, sorry for bothering you, and eager to go do something else.

    B. They detain you while waiting for a search order to be rubber stamped by an uncaring judge, then search you while pissed off that you dared to challenge their authority.

    Your choice.

    1. Re:not so easy by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      A. They search you, being in a good mood, sorry for bothering you, and eager to go do something else.

      B. They detain you while waiting for a search order to be rubber stamped by an uncaring judge, then search you while pissed off that you dared to challenge their authority.

      Obvious false dichotomy is obvious.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    2. Re:not so easy by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      C. You insist on your rights being maintained, he grumbles and huffs, threatens to get a warrant, but in the end lets you go because he knows he's not going to be able to get a search warrant for your phone because you were stopped for speeding.

  78. Where is the app for this? by martijnd · · Score: 1

    So where can I find an app for this?

    It needs to protect my phone from being abused by thieves & in this case the police -- and preferably screams in some kind of high piched funny voice "You TICKLE me!" when they connect a cable to it.

  79. always say no by buddilla · · Score: 1

    We should always say no. And when they say that, "everyone that is innocent doesn't say no". Say NO anyways. They are lying, cus we are innocent till we are proven guilty.Exercising our natural born right that has been reaffirmed in the constitution is not an admission of guilt or wrong doing. Besides who wants to be searched when your late for work. V for Victory

    --
    Pitch Forks: check Torches: check Angry People: check - A. LaChasse V for Victory
  80. Re:Just say no by muckracer · · Score: 1

    > What happens if you simply refuse to hand over your phone?

    What happens, if you DO want to hand it over and reach into your jacket, while the nervous cop has his hand on his gun...?!

  81. Can I buy this device? by fifers · · Score: 1

    I would love to be able to copy all of my photos and videos off of my smartphone in only 90 seconds!

  82. Talking when driving by leswt · · Score: 1

    The new device may be motivated by wanting to be able to tell if a person was just using the phone. Not sure if using a cell while driving is illegal in Michigan yet, I should know I live in Michigan

  83. Full Disk Encryption for Nexus S / One by gpuk · · Score: 1

    If you have a Nexus phone, WhisperCore is probably worth investigating:

    http://www.whispersys.com/whispercore.html

  84. New Revenue Source by remoteshell · · Score: 1

    I read the headline as "Michigan Police could SELL cell phones during traffic stops" but then, I'm not quite awake yet.

    --
    Just the washing instructions on life's rich tapestry
  85. amend by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    any DHS law enforcement-- not just customs.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  86. and the smaller the town by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    the worse the abuse can become, to the point if they want you dead, dead you shall be.

  87. Is it a portable device or take cellphone to lab by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    No mention of the size of portability or cost of the device. It would help to understand the justification a little better. In any event, encryption is already coming to cellphones. One stores the encryption key in one's head. Can they siphon the keys from my brain?

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  88. Going to piss people off... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    But if you don't like it, don't carry a cell phone. I didn't bother to rtfa, but I'm sure there has to be probable cause for them to search your cell. Getting pulled over for doing 5 mph over the limit is not really enough for them to search your vehicle unless when they get closer they suspect something else. I am actually all for this. They should be able to use this. It could prove, the reason they were speeding was they were sending/reading a text and or talking on the phone, any of which at the wrong moment could get someone killed. I don't want my government poking around my life any more than the next citizen no matter how little I have to hide. Like anything in law enforcement it's a tool. And like any tool can be used properly and can be abused. History has shown that the latter will most likely occur more than the former.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  89. Devils Advocate by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I doubt the cop is doing it because he particularly wants to or is circumventing policy, likely ordered to do it as part of his job. So don't fire the messenger, fire the guy who wrote the message.

  90. Easy Solution! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Just fill you phone with images of Goatse.

    Have fun washing your eyeballs with bleach and trying to forget you fascist bastards!

  91. What is this? by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    When I read about things like this, the picture in my mind is simply jackbooted thugs trampling over the constitution.

    WTF? Are government agencies trying to solve the energy crisis by harnessing the energy of our founding fathers spinning in their graves?

  92. Full device encryption for android devices? by torgis · · Score: 1

    So, is anyone aware of any applications that would provide full device encryption for Android phones? Does such an application exist yet?

  93. MOD +1 FORGIVEN by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to mod this post up. It's rare on /. (or anywhere else, for that matter) for someone to admit that they're wrong, especially after so many vitriolic responses.

    1. Re:MOD +1 FORGIVEN by causality · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to mod this post up. It's rare on /. (or anywhere else, for that matter) for someone to admit that they're wrong, especially after so many vitriolic responses.

      Truth be told, this general fact is probably why so many responses are vitriolic. It's assumed that no one will ever admit when they were wrong, that they are too proud to accept a correction, so the prevalent method is to rub their nose in it.

      What I most often see is a more subtle form of failure to admit when you're wrong. Say someone makes 4 separate points in a post. Let's say I can clearly refute 3 of them. When they respond to me, do they acknowledge that? Almost never. They pretend like they never tried to make 3 points which were refuted. They then proceed to talk exclusively about the 4th point.

      It's like most of Slashdot were required to attend a class called "Marketing and PR for Egotists" prior to creating an account. Gotta look good no matter what, and somehow "having the character and the guts to own a mistake, and maybe even to thank the one who set you straight" doesn't fall under "looking good".

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  94. Re:Full Phone Encryption? by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    If I did this to someones property without their permission I would have a problem.

        http://www.cellebrite.com/images/stories/support%20files/Apple_iPhone_Passcode_Bypass_instructions.pdf

    If I developed the equivalent to this and applied it to an Xbox or play station I would
    have a problem.

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  95. Copyright and GPL. by niftymitch · · Score: 1

    ... or if your carrier gives it to them

    From the Cellbrite site

    Cellebrite works exclusively with most major carriers worldwide including Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint/Nextel, T-Mobile, Rogers Wireless - Canada, Orange France and Telstra Australia, as well as 140 others. This ensures that future devices are supported prior to retail launch.

    So they work with vendors to gain access to intellectual property that is installed
    in the phone. Some of which is not the property of the vendors that Cellbrite
    states are involved. This seems like a pile of patent, copyright, trade secret and other
    secret sauce poo to me. It may be illegal to turn the thing on in the US as it
    is today. Because it runs WindowsCE does not give in free access to all
    file system technology in the world which makes access to Android phones
    interesting and anomalous including the secret sauce in new Windows phones.

    To infinity and beyond the fuzzy cloud....

    --
    Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
  96. Re:Company phone? Good luck with that. by bacontaco · · Score: 1

    AC is correct that it is a company phone, considering it said this right in the subject. (and quoting Donald Trump in a comment, seriously?)

  97. Important Point by nilbog · · Score: 1

    They have to have physical access to your phone.

    --
    or else!