Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ Complains About Getting a Warrant To Search Mobile Phones

Posted by samzenpus on from the give-us-an-easy-button-please dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The US government has entered its reply brief in the US vs. Wurie case and its argument in favor of warrantless searches of arrestees' cell phones contains some truly terrible suppositions. The government argues that impartial technological advancements somehow favor criminals. As it sees it, the path to the recovery of evidence should not be slowed by encryption or wiping or even the minimal effort needed to obtain a warrant. From the article: 'The government agrees that times are changing but counterintuitively argues that only law enforcement is being negatively affected by this. Every argument in favor of warrantless searches contains some sort of lamentation about how tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack open these new-fangled address books and copy everything down.'"

4 of 178 comments (clear)

  1. We're here to "help" you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We're here to "help" you! Now get down on the floor before we tazer your ass. Papers please! No, no, no. This would be more like, "life history, all data relating to everything you do ever, please!"

    1. Re:We're here to "help" you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Tazer? You must be a city boy. Out here in the county, the Sheriff's office gets the wrong address for a non-violent drug offender, activates the SWAT team, kicks down your door, shoots your dogs instantly whether or not they're a threat (read the policies out there; they did it to a mayor even), and then throws you on the floor and hog ties you and your wife in front of your kids.

      Then they figure out they have the wrong address.

      But you will still stay down, fool.. and you will comply.

      Or else.

      Preface: I live in the sticks on seven acres with over-zealous law enforcement (ironically many of whom I talk with at the target range) and the occasional meth head.

      And this kids, is why I'm probably on a list. I've got el-cheapo 360 degree camera coverage (including IR spectrum for night) hooked to a DVR which is also periodically (as in every ten minutes) backed up to an off-site location. I've also got motion sensor flood lights on every side of the house and garage. The floods and the DVR system are UPS backed. The locations of the cameras, while not being necessarily hidden, are not immediately obvious.

      My wife and I are both professionals with no kids, and generally like to be left the hell alone, so throughout the house (and basement, and garage) there are one of two types of weapons accessible: Smith and Wesson 686+ 7 shot .357 revolvers and Mossberg Persuaders in 12 gauge. Yes, we have more than one of each. It was an initial purchase that we made when we moved to the middle of nowhere, and the weapons are all hidden. If worse comes to worst and body armor is involved, in the gun safe is an AR-15 platform loaded up with the best 6.8mm SPC I can buy (unless they're wearing ceramic plates, I'll own em like a two dollar whore)

      We're both recreational shooters, have had considerable training (and indeed are going to Front Sight next year), and put rounds down range every month, if not every week as a hobby.

      I'm a software engineer who works from home (and former soldier), and she's a school teacher (and farm girl). We both lament that this mentality is needed, but here in Appalachia it's kind of like considering George Bush's presidency: no move too stupid.

      - signed: A Gun Totin' Working Class Agnostic Center-Left Democrat

    2. Re:We're here to "help" you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Firstly, I'm a law abiding citizen.

      The ideal situation is that I throw my dogs in the glassed in shower in my bathroom just off of my bedroom and calmly come out and ask 'what the fuck'. The whole point of motion sensors on the flood lights is that I'll see them coming. If they've got a warrant, come on in boys and look around. Just don't shoot anybody or anything.

      However, if it comes down to it I'll blow rounds through anybody wrongfully coming into my house. If they shoot my wife or anybody dear to me, then that SWAT officer is gone. Full stop. Either now or later; I've got a very long memory.

      In addition, I don't think you know how fucked up county SWAT morons are; they're little better than mall ninjas. Thanks to homeland security giving them military hardware and precious little training and common sense on how to use it, they're comical at times.. until they hurt somebody.

      Also, botched raids? You're welcome.

      And if you're one of those boot lickers who think no-knock warrants, drone strikes on US citizens, and ubiquitous surveillance are a good thing, fuck you.

      Somebody has got to put a stop to this shit. Violent crime is plummeting yet the state is escalating.

  2. Re:All Your Constitutional Rights are Belong to US by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You are aware that the constitution has been amended 10 times in the last century, right? Most recently in 1992, when laws effecting congressional salaries were delayed from taking effect until after the next election. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... ) And only once was a previous amendment touched: when the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).

    Granted a national convention has never actually been called, but that's largely because any time state support for an amendment approaches the point where it became likely that a national convention could be called (3/4 of states), the national congress has instead proposed a similar amendment themselves. Presumably to at least keep the specific wording under their own control rather than risk losing any more power than necessary to the state legislatures.

    And frankly it seems silly to worry that powerful interests will buy up the state legislatures in order to allow a national convention to craft a suitably seedy amendment - far easier to buy up the much smaller national congress to do the exact same thing without all the extra fanfare and beuracratic complexity. You'd still have to buy up the state legislatures to get it passed, but buying a single vote is likely far cheaper and more reliable than getting an appropriately worded amendment agreed through such a large group.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.