Slashdot Mirror
California Governor Vetoes Ban On Warrantless Phone Searches
kodiaktau writes "In probably the most important decision Gov. Brown of California will make this year, he has vetoed the bill that would require officers to get a search warrant before searching cellular phones of arrested citizens. This further enables the police to carry out warrantless searches of private property extending into contacts, email, photos, banking activity, GPS, and other functions that are controlled by modern phones. 'He cites a recent California Supreme Court decision upholding the warrantless searches of people incident to an arrest. In his brief message (PDF), he also doesn’t say whether it’s a good idea or not. Instead, he says the state Supreme Court’s decision is good enough, a decision the U.S. Supreme Court let stand last week.'"
I'd like a remote backup and 1-button wipe app...
So how many Californians will vote for him again? How many will also buy the official line about why they did it, which likely includes 'public safety or protecting the children'
Mellow out or you will pay!
If they want to be this way, vote 'em out. Bastards.
so who`s responsible if they get a mobile virus like the drone force hopefully not the person who`s phone was taken
Every other day we are seeing another example of how the ones who were supposed to exercise power on behalf of the people have become enemies of the people.
Some people utter empty stuff like "vote em' out" and whatnot - but, if it has been possible, we wouldnt have been in this situation have we ? whomever you vote, result is the same. the machine has been usurped by those who serve the few. laws work differently for the rich and the poor.
can you say with a rational mind that, things like occupy movement are unnecessary in such a world ?
Read radical news here
Wow. It was my impression that the supreme court judged cases based on existing law, and the legislature wrote new law. Perhaps the legislature wrote this law because it disagreed with the recent court decision. Part of why the legislature exists is to create and/or update laws in response to changing times and public opinion.
To Governor Brown: If the supreme court believes this law is unconstitutional, they can strike it down. Don't overstep your powers and do this for them. Unless *YOU,* on behalf of your constituents, have a specific objection: let the law pass.
(For the record, I live in CA and voted for Jerry Brown in the last election)
Scott Swezey
According to TFA, the bill was approved with 70-0 in the assembly and 32-4 in the state senate. Can't they just override this asshat?
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
"I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles
And never frowns
Soon I will be president..."
Brown had to- Otherwise how could he listen in to be sure we weren't plotting something like..oh, I don't know, maybe not giving all our money to illegal aliens so they can go to school here and take seats away from the residents like the other bill he is supposed to sign. He is really trying hard to ruin this state. Almost as hard as Obama is trying to ruin this country.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
So does this mean if I had an SSH client on my phone, with a certificate installed to automatically log me in to a private server at my home, that police can search my home computer via my phone as well?
I think it's fair to make the same comparison of them looking at my Facebook or Twitter account as well, because that's private data which is password-protected. The fact that my phone is automatically logged into those services does not change that fact. Much the same as if they went to my house and my door was unlocked. They're not allowed inside, regardless.
Computer laws in this country, and lack there-of, is definitely a concern.
".. we have come for your uncool niece! .."
unfortunately, the Gov is correct - we should not need a law to enforce the 4th Amendment.
from a purist point of view, fewer laws are better. from a practical point of view, I hope the state senate overrides his veto!
I called the governor's office and both of my state representatives. And the ACLU.
As I understand it from reading Prof. Orin Kerr's blogs and law review articles, this is a developing area of Constitutional law. Searches incident arrest are not intended to be something that allows an officer to search all locked containers within arms reach of the suspect when he is arrested, as I understand it. So the question really comes down to what category a phone falls into. And not all phones may be created equal. It may be that smart phones are entitled to more protection than low-end cell phones. But as the US Supreme Court has not been clear on this yet, it's up to the state and circuit courts to try to sort this issue out.
So in the end, the veto may or may not amount to anything.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Everyone complaining above agrees that an officer who arrests a hit and run offender should not be allowed to search the defendants phone to see if they were talking / texting at the time of the accident?
Good to see the Democratics acting as a counterbalance to the Republicans.
What is next? Open season on the baby seals in Monterey Bay?
I use an older crappy nokia phone that just does calls and text messages.. No email, no internet, etc etc.. Too afraid of losing a fancy smartphone with a bunch of "stuff" in it.. This is one more reason not to carry your whole life with you in one little package.
Really? THE most important? California is the most populous state in the Union and is in the middle of a budget crisis, its school system is in disarray, its unemployment rate is over 12%, there is a huge drug trafficking problem, human trafficking problem, public official corruption problem and whether a cop can search your *phone* is the largest issue on the Governor's plate for the ENTIRE YEAR? Who thinks this? Are these the same people that agonize over which color sweater their dog should wear this winter? Stuck in the supermarket for hours deciding on getting the regular or fancy mustard? Come on people.
I'm all for laws requiring the government to get its ducks in a row before they start pawing through my stuff and I think that veto was a poor choice on the Governor's part but this is by far NOT the most important issue in California's near future.
If a liberal like Jerry Brown won't support basic civil liberties, who the hell will?
Why do we need a law when warrentless searching of ones personal documents is clearly a violation of the constitution? Oh, that's right, we don't have a constitution anymore. I forgot.
To Governor Brown: If the supreme court believes this law is unconstitutional, they can strike it down. Don't overstep your powers and do this for them. Unless *YOU,* on behalf of your constituents, have a specific objection: let the law pass.
(For the record, I live in CA and voted for Jerry Brown in the last election)
The SCOTUS *already* struck down something similar; the governor is saving his cash strapped state millions of dollars in legal expenses which he is confident would just result in them pointing at said case they've recently already decided and asking "Did you not pay attention the first time?"
. . . property of government thus not subject to "Warrant" being their property by default, especially if you sign any contract to "relinquish service" or "relinquish ownership" or otherwise "relinquish [rights]" in the involvement? Or, should we always ask them to serve a warrant when they want to get the data off the wire they let us carry around?
"Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
I'm thinking an app that quickly resets your phone back to factory condition (and blanks the SD card) would be really popular in California about now.
Maybe a gesture followed by a long press, something that isn't obvious, couldn't be done accidentally and is unlikely to be done by your butt. Or, I know, a particular pattern of the volume control up and down arrows. With many phones this could be done without even taking it out of the holster.
Or (this would be really cool) the app would quickly substitutes a list of LEO phone numbers and photos of LEOs in uncompromising positions. (You know they're out there -- it'd just take some looking.) Or... ok, so where was that sex tape of Jerry and Linda again?
So, where did your original stuff go? Well, you do back up your phone, don't you?
Or even easier, a "stunt phone" you keep on your hip, with the real phone stashed in a nonobvious place. It's all the same to Bluetooth.
In other words, this will only entrap the terminally stupid.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
According to the World English Dictionary:
1. Also called: personal effects personal property or belongings
According to the Bill of Rights:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
What about that is so complicated that the courts and the governor can't understand it? A cellphone is an effect and the Bill of rights says you need a warrant to search those. It offers no exceptions.
If the phone is locked I don't think they can search without a warrant, if it is open to use then they can.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
LOL This article's title was confusing. I have to really think about it for a minute...
Consider that someone's phone can't be searched without a warrant...now add:
WARRENTLESS PHONE SEARCHING
BAN ON WARRENTLESS PHONE SEARCHING
VETO OF BAN ON WARRENTLESS PHONE SEARCHING
so... that's BAD I guess!! (triple negative) Oh well! I'm glad I don't live in California!!
It was the supreme court of the state of CA, not SCOTUS, and since they didn't rule that a specific law was unconstitutional, I believe a new law would supersede their decision... unless of course they ruled that the new law violated the state constitution.
Remember, the court makes decisions within the bounds of current law. Unless a law violates the constitution, the courts are overridden by the law. Not the other way around.
Scott Swezey
This would be a ban on the police/state doing something, not a ban on the citizens doing something, so there's no need for constitutional review.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Some people utter empty stuff like "vote em' out" and whatnot - but, if it has been possible, we wouldnt have been in this situation have we ? whomever you vote, result is the same. the machine has been usurped by those who serve the few. laws work differently for the rich and the poor.
The flaw in your logic is that you do not consider voter complacency or apathy. The fact is that most voters are loyal to their party. Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems. If you loyally vote for *your* party then your party can ignore you because your vote is secure, and the other party can ignore you because they can do nothing to earn your vote. Those who vote based upon a theoretical party platform are a big part of the problem. People need to make politicians realize that they will cross party lines for the slightest reason. This is the only way to make politicians responsive to the voters, to make politicians fear that there is no base they can rely upon.
Similarly consumers are in control, not corporate CEOs. Again the problem is consumer complacency or apathy. Corporate greed is actually a tool of control for the consumer since the consumer controls where their money is spent. The consumer can reward a company that behaves in a manner they prefer by giving them their business, and thereby punish another company that behaves in a manner they disapprove of. The result is that if enough consumers behave in this manner then the profit incentive, greed, tells companies to behave in a manner consumers approve of. If all CEOs care about is money then wave the money in the direction you want the CEO to go. The problem is that consumer seem to have no consideration other than a low price. So consumers get what they incentivize, low prices, regardless of how those prices are attained.
So you want change. Vote against politicians who behave against your wishes regardless of party and turn away from companies that behave against your wishes. Protests will accomplish little beyond raising awareness and educating individuals. Talk must be followed by action. Protests are talk, votes and spending are actions.
Seriously, that's my whole comment. Fuck that nazi piece of shit.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
DIE on organic poison gas
Serpent's egg's already hatched
You will croak, you little clown
When you mess with President Brown
When you mess with President Brown
California Ãoeber Alles!
Do you really need your whole life on your phone? Isn't a contact list and a calendar/alarm (as well as the ability to talk/text) more than enough?
Fun fact: you could use a dumbphone and then do all your email/games/etc from an Ipod touch or some such. Just chuck your touch under your car seat when you see the cop drive up. Then let 'em search your phone...there's nothing there.
To Governor Brown: If the supreme court believes this law is unconstitutional, they can strike it down. Don't overstep your powers and do this for them. Unless *YOU,* on behalf of your constituents, have a specific objection: let the law pass.
Well, it seems that the Governor of California swears an oath that starts out like this --
"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California ...
It seems to me that if he thinks a bill is unconstitutional (no matter how much *I* might like the bill) it's his duty to veto it.
I'm not saying that this is why he vetoed it -- I don't know why -- but I'm simply saying that vetoing it for being unconstitutional would not strike me as an overstepping of his powers if he really does think it's unconstitutional.
At least Jerry Brown is honest. He makes it clear when he's been bought. None of this slight of hand nonsense.
All of the above assumes the ones to be replaced, be politician or corporation, are inactive and dumb to act. and wont leverage their power for control.
Read radical news here
The SCOTUS didn't strike down a similar bill, they just didn't disagree with the California Supreme Court in their assessment that lets police search cell phones of people they arrest. It's entirely in the legislature's rights to then say, 'oh that's not how it should be' and pass more protections against searches. I don't really see anything unconstitutional about law makers passing restrictions on what police, a part of the government, can do against citizens. If it was the other way around, for example allowing searches when there should be protections, then yes it should be struck down.
I hate to bring reality into this discussion, but the bill that was passed allows the police to search phones of people "incident to arrest".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_incident_to_a_lawful_arrest
For those of you too busy to read the wiki page, what that means is that the police officer has to have already arrested a person for some other lawful cause before they can search the phone. As a corollary to that, if the original arrest is not lawful then anything discovered while searching the phone will be inadmissible in court.
It is not like the police can pull you over for a traffic stop and then start rooting through your phone.
If you are really concerned about having your phone searched then password protect it. If you want to go one step further, set a very low incorrect password lockout threshold and let the phone wipe itself. My Blackberry wipes itself after 10 incorrect tries. There is probably a way to adjust that setting. Set it to three.
Let's assume the government isn't interested in defending liberty; historically, they really haven't been.
What kind of technical security do any phones have, especially against aggressive portable electronics that can do raw flash reads?
Assuming my iPhone 4 (running latest 4.x iOS) has Data Protection enabled and my phone is turned off when the police get ahold of it, how secure is my data? My understanding is that the flash can be read, but data like mail and contacts are encrypted.
Is this even remotely "good enough?
Would an officer be required to have a warrant to the credentials to unlock / decrypt a device, or would the accused be required to give his or her credentials without?
What, you mean your copy of the constitution doesn't say "The Police must search the Papers and Effects of any Citizen suspected of any Crime, Misdemeanor, Infraction, or Act of poor Taste, whenever an Opportunity presents, and no Law shall interfere with this Duty."? Must be one of those bad translations...
Alright, that's definitely a good point but regardless of that, I would hope he would consider it to be redundant and let the court(s) handle it.
Scott Swezey
as the last person voted into office shows. he did the opposite of everything he promised. leave aside leaving promises unfulfilled. he did opposites.
Read radical news here
How long till socialism and fascism meet on the circle, and our Constitution is just paper.
Police union is an important donor to Democratic campaigns.
Don't like your legislator?
Open your wallet and buy another one. Tell your friends to do the same.
15TW = 15,000 Nuclear Reactors. (Approx. one accident a month.)
The fact is that most voters are loyal to their party. Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems.
They're ridiculously loyal to the various brands of consumer products they buy as well, regardless of whether there's another make available that's better and/or cheaper. While many people give standing ovations when politicians spew rhetoric about "change" (Clinton and Obama are famous for this) the reality is that they really don't want it. And that's reasonable: we're basically conservative in that regard, because change for the sake of change is inherently risky. If you are going to screw around with our basic institutions and traditions, you'd better have something viable with which to replace them. But they never do, and so matters go from bad to worse.
In addition, exercising the power of the vote wisely requires time, effort, education and level of understanding which is far more than most Americans are willing to invest. That's true even though the payback, if enough of us did that, would come in spades.
Furthermore, if our much-vaunted, Constitutionally-protected "free press" (term used very loosely) had not sold out or fallen down on the job, we might be able to make better decisions. Knowledge is power.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This would be a ban on the police/state doing something, not a ban on the citizens doing something, so there's no need for constitutional review.
Did you mean "police/state" or "police state"?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
No! Only Voters!
Before the gubernatorial election, you California voters were repeatedly warned of the character of left-of-loony Brown, yet you chose to vote for him anyway.
Did you voters imagine that tyranny could be imposed only at gunpoint?
Did you believe that Democrats would respect the provisions of the U.S. Constitution?
If you said "Yes," more's the pity, for you have given away your birthright as well as those of your children, without even a whimper of protest.
Shame on your dogmatism.
Shame on your ignorance.
Shame on you!
is not the law maker, people are (peoples reps). By not allowing people to make laws they think are useful, he lost my confidence the second time (I voted against him the first time). He should promptly resign before being impeached.
Californians are idiots to have ever let that man back in the governor's mansion again.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's not the governor's job to decide constitutionality. That is what the Judiciary and Legislative (i.e senate/assembly) branches exist for.
I remember when Evelle J. Younger was running against Brown in the late 70s. It was the first election I could vote in, anyway he had a funny commercial of Jerry Brown caricature and an old washing machine. The ad had the repeating lines of "Indecisive, Wishy-Washy" about how Brown had flip flopped on issues and was basically a hypocrite. Of course all politicians are hypocrites but it still was one of the funniest political ads I can remember.
I think the Malathion he drank has affected his brain because NFW would I allow a cop to rummage through my phone. Hopefully the marketplace will answer with some intrusion/wipe detection apps.
We do have a right to privacy and must defend it always. I understand the need to protect the public from criminal activity but there should be a barrier to prohibit privacy barriers from being circumvented as well. I guess this falls into the category of going through the glove box in your car when you get pulled over or going through your trunk so I presume there has to be probable cause established for this but undoubtedly the courts will have to decide this. In 1928, In Olmstead v. United States Justice Brandeis in dissent
"Subtler and more far-reaching means of invading privacy have become available to the Government. Discovery and invention have made it possible for the Government, by means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. "
This was about the first case brought before the court about wire tapping and after this case, it set off a rash of other rulings that brought the idea that technology could be used to intrude on privacy. Although the evidence in the case were transcripts, the information in the transcripts were used to arrest other people who were importing and distributing liquor. Eventually laws were put into place that meant that wiretaps had to be authorized by a judge and evidence of probable cause produced.
We always have to protect our privacy just like we protect anything else we value otherwise there will be someone in our government trying to take it away.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Gov. Brown of California.
giggity
Meet the T-900, with improved deceiving methods and a brand new body
"In probably the most important decision Gov. Brown of California will make this year, he has vetoed the bill that would require officers to get a search warrant"
Um, he also signed into law a bill which allows any adult to purchase and possess 30 or fewer syringes from a pharmacy, physician or Syringe Exchange Program anywhere in California. Which will probably save hundreds of lives from HIV and thousands from hepatitis C. You know, the lives of human beings?
Warrantless searches of phones sucks, but in the grand scheme of things I'd rather have the cops search mine or my friends' phones without a warrant than watch people die of AIDS.
What we don't seem to have in either TFA or the /. summary is a careful analysis of the issue.
I've been arrested in California (more than once). IIRC the process typically included a search and taking away stuff like my wallet and house keys. It certainly seems reasonable to me that if the cops are going to arrest someone, they might want to make sure he doesn't have a gun or a knife on him. This involves a search.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that if the cops had tried to use my arrest as a pretext to search my safe-deposit box, the bank would have said, "No, not without a warrant."
So is clicking around on your cell more like taking away the contents of your pocket, or is it more like searching your safe-deposit box?
The /. summary talks about looking at your contacts. How is this different from looking at what phone numbers you have written down on a card in your wallet?
Could we maybe get some analysis from someone who knows about California criminal law, constitutional law, etc., rather than just some cheerleading? BTW, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
Find free books.
It seems as if there will be soon enough, if there isn't already, a market for specialized Android phones which encrypt storage and the contents of the working memory at all times, analogous to full disk encryption. With the appropriate settings, it would be nearly impossible for any unauthorized search of the device to occur without the owner's consent. Indeed, it would even be possible to render the "secret" OS hidden and its existence plausibly deniable, as TrueCrypt does today. Moreover, it would be perfectly legal, at least here in the US, to develop and market a device. In fact, it's likely that some enterprising android users have already found ways to make this work using TrueCrypt or other similar open source tools.
.. or can we?
I don't like the idea of having my emails, sms, etc downloaded by the police w/o warrant. I know they have some devices that download the contents of your smartphone. If you have a jailbroken iPhone, is there anything you can do to encrypt?
Evolution: love it or leave it
You're either naive or a zealot. It's common knowledge that the "invisible hand" cliche you're advocating is ham-stringed by anti-competitive practices such as market collusion. The attorney general has not taken any pro-consumer anti-trust action for the past several administrations. Crony-capitalism is alive and well.
Remember me next time you buy gasoline.
The SCOTUS did no such thing. In People v. Diaz, the California Supreme Court held that warrantless searches of a cellphone was consistent with the protections of the U.S. Constitution and the CA State constitution. In other words, they interpreted a Police Procedure in light of State and Federal Constitutions. There was no statute involved.
In saying the SCOTUS 'let stand' that decision, this merely means that they chose not to grant certiorari. This is not affirming the decision, this is not striking down something similar, this is merely REFUSING to consider the question to begin with. There are numerous reasons the Court might do this: First, the issue involved a matter of State constitutional interpretation - a matter best left to individual states. This is because the California State Constitution recognizes more privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution. Second, the SCOTUS may be waiting for more opinions from other courts before they take on the issue. The search of cellphones is still relatively immature across the states and circuits. Third, alternately, the facts of Diaz may be unambiguous under federal protections, rendering intervention unnecessary.
OP is correct that Gov. Brown has this exactly backwards. A bill requiring heightened protections for cell phones does nothing to "overturn" the Cal. Sup. court's decision, as it does not change the way the court applies and interprets Constitutional protections. It instead, by legislative powers, creates a circumstance under which the State may provide more protections than the Constitution requires. This is explicitly and unambiguously allowed under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. A State may ALWAYS choose to provide more protections than the Constitution requires, it simply may not provide less.
This is where I get my recommended daily allowance of "Foot in Mouth."
The courts interpreted current law and came to the conclusion that these kinds of warrantless searches were legal.
That is why the law is being changed: it doesn't reflect what we the people want.
In effect the governor's justification for the veto is: "you can't pass this new law because it would change existing law". Well, that's the whole point of passing a new law!
Where did you get the idea that the bill was remotely unconstitutional?
It's perfectly constitutional for me to pee in the street. The state can decide it's illegal, and they're within their right to do so.
It's apparently perfectly constitutional for the police to search cell phones without a warrant. The legislature can decide it's illegal, and they're within their right to do so
This is how the system of checks and balances works; the judiciary is checked by the legislature. But in this case they got checked by the executive on their way to the goal. It's all on the up-and-up, but it's one of the more blatant examples of the government attacking civil rights I've seen in quite a while.
I guess the next step is a ballot proposition for a CA constitutional amendment. I'd think this would be a pretty easy one to get passed, unless some people out there really have a compelling interest in having their own phones searched next time they're speeding. Next step after that is not voting for this asshole again. :/
...or, reading further, the legislative override. That's actually heartening news to be reminded of that check.
Perhaps we have been lied to and Communism is really the freedom machine. They have 4 times the population in China with lees people in prison.
And all of our corporations fall all over themselves to be there.
I think we have been duped.
I just might have fought on the wrong side.
You have no rights.
Only corporatiions and bankers who pay off the politicians have rights.
Occupy! Stand up against the tyrants who've taken over, wherever you may be.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Search the "phone" not the computers (databases) on the other end of the line. If they do; then what? Bank accounts? Laws against it! Your website? Laws against it! Your personal server? Laws against it!
Use the LAW against "The LAW"
Fight fire with fire.
Those who vote based upon a theoretical party platform are a big part of the problem.
A particularly noisome subgroup are "single-issue" voters. They'll accept anything as long as their particular idée fixe is satisfied. That precludes reasonable discussion and makes reaching acceptable compromises with them practically impossible. That was ok as long as their number was low - but lately more and more voters (especially on the right) seem to reduce their criteria to single issues.
Where did you get the idea that the bill was remotely unconstitutional?
I didn't (get that idea at all.) I *never* said I though the bill was unconstitutional.
My point was that as I see it, if the governor thinks a bill is unconstitutional, one way of satisfying his oath is to veto it. (There may be other ways to satisfy the oath, of course.)
Defending the Constitution is not only the job of the courts -- in fact, most of our public officials who swear an oath as part of their job swear to uphold and protect it. If our elected officials took this duty more seriously, I think our country would be in better shape today.
I did not say that the bill was unconstitutional -- and in fact I don't really believe it is -- but was instead responding to Scott Sweze's (implied?) idea that he might have vetoed it on Constitutional grounds. (And again, I don't know why he vetoed it, so I'm not commenting on his real reason, whatever it might be.)
It's not the governor's job to decide constitutionality.
Then why does he swear to defend the Constitution? Why do so many elected officials, soldiers, public servants, etc. do so?
As I see it, it's *everybody's* job to decide constitutionality, and while it doesn't really matter how good of a job most citizens do, if you're involved in making and enforcing laws -- it *does* matter. Legislators should not make unconstitutional laws, governors should not sign unconstitutional laws, and police should not enforce unconstitutional laws.
That is what the Judiciary and Legislative (i.e senate/assembly) branches exist for.
And I disagree. I think everybody ought to be aware of the issues to some degree, but those who actually make and enforce laws need to have a pretty good grasp on the Constitutionality of what they do.
But yes, if there's disagreement, the judicial branch gets the final word. But *not* the only word.
As you can clearly see (Jerry Brown, Obama = guantanamo still open, 2 wars still going on, Libya, warrantless phone recordings, etc). Shit, we have nothing to choose but to join the anti-Wall St. crowd.
Uber Alles!
Don't mess with Governor Brown :)
Furthermore, if our much-vaunted, Constitutionally-protected "free press" (term used very loosely) had not sold out or fallen down on the job, we might be able to make better decisions. Knowledge is power.
I think our "free press" found out is was more fun to "program" us than "inform" us.
Why would anyone elect a typical dictator, a violent man, former Mayor of Oakland, to be a governor over an entire country? If anyone hasn't looked then they should look at Oakland right now: it's one of the most violent places like Watts and Compton and Los Angeles. Californians may as well voted/rebelled against the existing laws to have some militant with no leadership skills and no scholascic ability to be governor rather than a librarian with a can-do attitude?
What's with all the Hollywood and macho shit going through California offices? Why are all these people allowed to vote against my successful lifestyle when it's everyone else that can't keep a job and can't balance their checkbooks and can't focus on what matters with hard work in their life? People around me are voting against me by electing people who enforce their regulations at the threat of a gun instead of the voluntary pervue of their legislation. When will it end? Why do all these TV-watching dumb educated people with useless college degrees leave me alone in my RV that I don't owe debt to use? Why are all these people forcing me to classify my houseboat as a luxury? I live without impacting anyone else negatively, do my best to generate revenue by moving money around, but I get put into higher taxation like it's a penalty for being smarter.
I found out how to win this war: it is by leaving this God-forsaken region. I'm just going to sell my land vessel and take my Houseboat out somewhere else where the only people that disrespect my right to property are pirates and foreign nations. Judging by my surroundings, my former country treated me like a foreigner anyway, and anyone steaming past me is most-likely someone that hates my former country more than I did. I wonder why...
it seems jasno sees both types of offenses as a pretext for inappropriate police/government activity
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
influence his veto.
His explanation either show he is an idiot or has no respect for privacy or is in bed with the police/guard unions who thrive on more prisoners.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The cop unions bought him the job, he's staying bought, fair and square. You don't see that kinds of loyalty much any more.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
No, we don't have a constitution anymore. But how did this happen? Did the people ask for it? (Don't make me fall over laughing.) Of course not -- the victims of oppression, logically, cannot be the oppressors at the same time.
The reason we don't have a constitution is because government is big enough. Yes, government is big enough, measured both in revenue and power over the people. At some point during the expansion of the US government (and make no mistake, the US government of today absolutely dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people), they had gained enough power and revenue to ignore what was supposed to be the supreme law of the land.
That's all there is to it. They ignore the constitution because THEY CAN. Therefore, the only possibly solution is to reduce the size of government, measured both in revenue and power over the people. Reduce it to the point where they CANNOT ignore the constitution.
Good thing there's a mechanism for the legislature overriding a veto, isn't there?
Start calling up assembly representatives, and let them know that privacy concerns are the battleground for the next few elections. Then tell them that you know how they voted on this issue before, and that you expect them to do the right thing going forward.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
IANAL: A quick challenge to this law would be to physically break the phone or device so that it is unusable. Also if you have a a way to password protect, do it! I am ignorant of the law however to bypass passwords, then you think they need a warrant. What about corporate phones? I have a public obligation not to allow mine to the public for insider trading issues.
I also cannot wait for the inevitable oops with this law. A warrant is quick with a nimble police force, oh wait I forgot we were talking about California. Law and Order brought to you by Ponch and Judge Judy.
The best way to fix things is to start at the local level and work up from there.
How would that help with problems that are purely federal, such as copyright, patent, and overreaching expansion of the commerce clause?
As soon as I read this, I immediately recalled the safeguards in my cell phone and smiled.
I have an iPhone and I believe that one can set up Android phones to do this. I don't know about the cheaper, dumber cellular phones, but I don't plan to buy any:
This is from Apple's instruction on their website.
So, here's what happens. You're protesting Wall Street on the streets of California and you're picked up in a sweep. Or maybe you're not protesting—you're just picked up. When you are taken to booking, your personal effects are surrendered and itemized. The Police, thinking you are a druglord and interested in getting all of your contacts, go directly to your cell phone. But it asks for a passcode. And the newest iOS devices can ask for an alphanumeric passcode, which is even harder to guess than just a numerical sequence. You were smart, you didn't tell anyone your passcode, you "lawyered up," and you didn't make your birthday or anything obvious your passcode.
The police try various ideas six or seven times. They know that they get ten chances, so they decide to try to sweat it out of you. You give them two or three bogus passcodes before they figure you're scamming them. They've got one more chance and then data is erased. You smile and refuse to give out any more passwords, saying that you don't agree with the Supreme Court ruling and that you think that their repeated attempts to "break and enter" your phone constitute unreasonable search and seizure.
They try one more guess and the iPhone destroys all data on it. Or they don't touch your iPhone, figuring they may be able to find a judge who will compel you to reveal your passcode.
Turns out you are not a dangerous criminal, drug kingpin or international Man of Mystery—you're just a working stiff who was randomly picked up. You are let go and all of your personal effects are returned to you, including your cell phone.
You wait until you are far away from the police and you activate your phone and type in the correct passcode. Either the phone will work or it won't, based on whether or not the police tried ten different passcodes and initiated data erasure. It if was erased, you can restore the phone from it's backup on your computer (You do regularly back up the data on your phone, don't you?). If it wasn't, you can be secure that you have shared nothing with the police, beyond what you shared before you "lawyered up."
I would be very interested in confirmation that the Android devices have this same feature, but I suspect they do. I'm really sure that RIM's Blackberry cell phones may be locked down like this, as I do recall an article about our President's phone being secured by the Secret Service.
If you are a drug kingpin and you are a wrongdoer, then a pox on you and your family. This advice is directed to the other 99% of people who are good citizens.
Don't forget this is the same governor that just signed a bill that will allow ILLEGAL ALIENS to apply for state aid and i think they can also apply for student aid at a college after all the legals have applied. California is broke. get out and stay out.
You have to wonder what the Governator would have done with this. Arnold is a conservative in most things, but I think he appreciated our Bill of Rights more than many. Dispute me on this if you disagree.
Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
Some organizations offer cheap background checks via publically available aggregated data, some of which report an arrest as a conviction (meaning if you were arrested but acquitted or later not even charged for something, the background check still returns True on the IsCriminal...) The point is, the system treats arrested people as if they were criminals, and this isn't much different - the search and seizure would only be legal if my IsCriminal == True, but that's the case just for being arrested.
I don't see the cell phone search as problematic if the person was convicted and the cell phone was already in the possession of the police. But Jesus, I get pulled over and have a warrant for unpaid tickets, suddenly this means I don't have my usual rights, even though I haven't yet been to court and proved guilty of anything? If they can violate my property rights and privacy on suspicion of being liable for arrest, what stops them from arresting me just for being suspicious?
If you start arguing for your rights with an officer, did you know they can slap cuffs on you, for "failure to cooperate with law enforcement"? Which means they can literally arrest any person who expresses having a problem with being questioned or searched, meaning they can search a phone any time they please, in theory. The supreme court was wrong to let this one stand.
Would the police need a warrant?
Never mind the veto, he has also passed 3 anti-gun laws in the state recently.
Seems the folks at the top are doing everything they can to strip our freedoms. They get away with it by fear mongering "terrorists" card around. you can't take a pic at the mall, have to walk barefoot at the airport, watch what you say, can assassinate US citizens whenever they like. -- Scary.
The US Supreme Court also upheld the Constitutional right of Americans to own guns. I wonder if Gov. Brown will use this wholesale attitude be signing all legislation to uphold the right to arms and vetoing all gun control legislation?
While many people give standing ovations when politicians spew rhetoric about "change" (Clinton and Obama are famous for this) the reality is that they really don't want it.
I'm going to call bullshit on this. There are a *lot* of people who genuinely want change.
Furthermore, to suggest that they only want change "for the sake of change" is just silly. It implies that they're happy with the status quo, but just want to change something for no reason. You won't find very many people in the US that are happy with the status quo right now. That's one reason I find the "how do you like your change now?" crowd hilarious: it implies that they thought everything was going great back when we were having too-big-to-fail bailouts, which we all know was not the case. It's the whole reason the Tea Party even came into existence -- they wanted (wait for it) change.
Anyway, your whole post basically amounts one big poisoning-the-well argument, which is a logical fallacy.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
So my glovebox if locked requires a warrant but my phone doesn't?
Yeah, well, I'll put my phone IN MY GLOVEBOX! How you like THEM apples, police state!!!
(I'm kidding, this is terrible, they of course can already invent a reason to search your glove box (looks like we got a lot of dust on the dashboard, could be cocaine, that's probable cause!) and I'm sure they're going to eventually fully declare the glove box searcheable even without some flimsy excuse for probable cause)
Don't keep anything incriminating on your cellphone. I know that sounds like the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" B.S., but I'm talking to people who DO have something to hide. After closing your deal, (whatever illicit business you do) delete any record of it from your phone. Recieved a text saying "the drop off is at noon at the docks"? Well then read it, remember it, and delete it. They can't search the contents of your head (yet...)
This is the same governor Brown who appointed Rose Bird to the California State Supreme Court in his first term. The California State Supreme Court is definitely NOT good enough
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
For the record, I live in CA and voted for Jerry Brown in the last election
Woops.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
The Feds have used the Commerce Clause to excuse everything from gun laws and regulating home gardens to the War on Drugs. And it's all BS. True students of history know that the commerce clause had a restrictive meaning; it was never intended to extend Federal power to anything like it is now.
Exactly right. Atheismo forbid the federal gov't should operate within the strict and clearly written constitutional laws set forth. It's clauses have been perverted to justify unlawful legislation every which way from Sunday (far more than the few you have accurately recited) and the bill of rights (something that actually IS part of the constitution) ends up being attacked on a continual basis because of it.
Federal gov't: If you want to change the constitution FINE there is a predefined way to do that, and it has been done several times. It is not easy, which means changes to it should not be taken lightly. This is intentional. But to pass laws and twist the meaning of the constitution to fit your laws, at the expense of the liberties that the constitution guarantees to the people is despicable and makes a mockery of the document. Change it, otherwise operate within the restrictions that it places on you.
I support Paul based on this premise alone. I can not in good conscience vote for anyone else. I am not a republican per se (I have legitimately voted for candidates in at least 4 different parties, include GOP and Democratic), but will register as one to give him my vote in the GOP primary.
Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems.
No, you have to go deeper than that. The main problem underlying all others in the undue influence of money in politics. Whether it's from the Christian Right or Corporation X, policy is able to be bought by small vested interests at the expense of the wider public.
This is the root of all the climate change debate, and going back to how hard it was to legislate against smoking, asbestos, lead in petrol, you name it.
Party loyalty wouldn't matter so much if the parties themselves were free to make *rational* policy decisions not based around where they're getting their next campaign funding from.
The corruption of the democratic process by capitalism (ironic as that is) is the big problem of our time.
Subject line says it all. Can the population reciprocate and have the police seize the governers cellphone.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Party loyalty is responsible for many of our current problems.
No, you have to go deeper than that. The main problem underlying all others in the undue influence of money in politics.
You are not going deep enough. The true problem is voter complacency or apathy. One person one vote is where the ultimate power lies. No amount of TV commercials and such can overcome that, TV can only manipulate the complacent.
you, me, the people who use internet for more than checking their email.
the majority of masses who will decide the election, do not.
Read radical news here
Californians it's time to rise up and fight the man! Take charge of your situation and uh... Dang... you guys can't even buy pepper-spray to fight off the bears anymore can you? Um... Okay. New plan. Start a union?
I have to disagree. What's the point in voting for one part or the other, if both are beholden to commercial interests over the greater good?
Why do you think people are apathetic about voting in the first place?
I have to disagree. What's the point in voting for one part or the other, if both are beholden to commercial interests over the greater good?
Why do you think people are apathetic about voting in the first place?
You don't vote for a party. You vote for an individual candidate. Once in office if the official does not behave responsibly you vote for his opponent. Repeat as necessary. Party is irrelevant.
True, I'm in Australia so things are a bit different. But it's still a case of the candidates having to raise money for their campaigns. They accepting donations from vested interests in return for their vote on certain policies. Is that not so?
The law presumes that the action is legal.
To pass the law opens the entire issue up to review
in the courts. It is good that Brown did what he did.
Hidden is Row v. Wade is a privacy issue
not an abortion issue. If Row v. Wade validated
a law permitting abortion it would validate state and federal domain
over the body of women in general and specifically
the unborn. i.e. it would validate the domain of law
and would permit a law to mandate abortion and other incursions into
health care.
Keep as much off the phone as possible and encrypt
what you can to protect yourself from identity theft.
True, I'm in Australia so things are a bit different. But it's still a case of the candidates having to raise money for their campaigns. They accepting donations from vested interests in return for their vote on certain policies. Is that not so?
Often a candidate states a position first and then donors contribute to candidates whose stated positions are agreeable. Of course its no secret who the local donors are so this can influence a candidates decision. As long as the position is known to voters before the election I suppose this is not too bad. For stuff that comes up during a term the votes are often not surprising, somewhat inline with previously stated positions. Then again on many issues there is sufficient flexibility that one can find previously stated positions and principles that can support either voting for or against a piece of legislation. One of the problems in our system is that a single piece of legislation can include things that are completely unrelated to each other, giving nearly any candidate an excuse to vote for it.
That's interesting, thanks. So then what do Occupy Wall St people mean when they say they want money out of politics? If what you say is basically the whole picture, I don't see a problem.
Still, there's the issue of parties, and don't candidates have to tow the party line on many issues regardless of their previously stated positions? Colbert & Daily Show is popular here, and Stewart recently pointed out how one of the current Rep. candidates had a position on something (pro choice I think) before and now the party has apparently made him completely change position on it.
Where does that influence come from? Or is it simply that the majority of candidates hold that position, so he had to align himself if he's going to represent the party?
I'm not sure if the occupy movement wants all money out of politics or if they only want some money (those they disagree with) out of politics. I'm patiently waiting to see if the movement is legit, i.e. wants all organizational money out - for example corporate and union. I'm curious if the recent union participation is an attempt to get ahead of this or if there has been some sort of astroturfing going on, an attempt by various democratic party activists to manufacture their version of the "tea party". The movement seems to have been started by a canadian anti-consumerism group but without leadership or a message it could have easily spun out of their control. Not unlike the "tea party" starting out as anti-debt and anti-spending and criticizing both major parties but becoming increasingly associated with the republican party.
:-), their positions. This leads to the second problem. The party candidates are selected by the party members in "primary" elections. At the national level both parties have become increasingly intolerant of their respective moderate candidates. So democratic candidates have to appear solidly left leaning and republican candidates have to appear solidly right leaning. Once the candidate receives the party nomination they have yet another round of "clarifications" as they move more towards the center to have greater appeal to voters on a national level. Stewart and Colbert seem a little more eager to point out this sort of nonsense on the republican party side. It happens just as often on the democratic party side. Obama was an Illinois state legislator from a very left leaning district of Chicago. For 15 (?) years he attended the church of a somewhat radical minister who occasionally said some "strange" things. During the presidential campaign Obama said he never heard some of the controversial sermons and would have considered changing churches if he had. That's a bit hard to believe given the many years he attended that church. More likely is the fact that the reverend was a local power broker and no one got elected in that district of Chicago without his "blessing". So Obama just sat there in church and smiled at the crazy man. However when running for president Obama was quick to change churches due to the reverend's surprising and unacceptable statements.
The "problem" is that voters are basically complacent and/or apathetic, and highly influenced by TV commercials and other campaign activities. So a better funded campaign has a distinct advantage. There is a general consensus that the "rich" and corporate interests have a disproportionate say. All of this ignores the simple fact that the reality is still one person one vote. Limiting political contributions does not change the core "problem" of voters not doing their homework. I cannot say that only allowing individuals to contribute to a political campaign is a bad idea, I just doubt that it will really fix things.
Regarding Stewart and Colbert, while they are often honest they are also occasionally incomplete in their portrayal. Which is fair since they are entertainers not journalists. Several things change a candidate's position. One major factor is the regional nature of the race. For example Romney was governor of Massachusetts. Massachusetts voters heavily favor democratic party candidates, much more so than most other parts of the country. So a republican running for the governorship there has to be a very moderate sort of republican. Similarly democrats running for the governorship in a state like Texas have to be a very conservative sort of democrat. When these candidates move from state to national elections they are facing voters with very different expectations and desires, and they often modify - excuse me, "clarify"