Gamers sometimes learn bad fictional behavior. (Consider the evil character paths in various D&D games.) Gamers frequently learn good fictional behavior. (Consider the hero character paths in many D&D games.)
In contrast, a chapter of Hell's Angels in Hamburg ran multiple houses for the rape of teenage girls and women held as slaves. (Sources: Victor Malarek's The Natashas, Terry Lee Wright's River of Innocents.) They were responsible for enabling thousands of rapes in the real world.
Yes, it's atypical for a biker gang. But all things considered, it's more rare for the gamer.
> Given the critical importance of hard disk storage in all of our lives, we thought you might want a peek under that hood, too.
Careful... what if you open the hard disk and there's a mouse inside who's been remembering it all for you? Then he sees you and realizes "Oh, crap, we need to do the experiment all over. Vogons! Oh, Vogons! Where are you...."
Can write cursive. Can't write shorthand, but can write cursive. But between writing rushed cursive for two hours v. typing, I prefer the latter and get much more information down.
> File sharing is also only one step away from human sharing, or human trafficking as you name it.
Note, for those who don't know: Human Trafficking is modern-day slavery. In the US alone, several hundred thousand teens are at high risk for being trafficked each year. (Sources: Polaris Project; National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.)
>I type far faster than most of the populace when I want to, but part of the point of pen and paper is that you have to think about what it is that you're writing.
I respectfully disagree--the point of pen and paper is to use them, as a tool, in this case to take notes. They have advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that the limitation on the quantity of notes you can take forces you to preprocess your notes more thoroughly. The corresponding disadvantage is that you can take fewer notes. There are some lectures where the ability to take notes rapidly is the more important quality, and there are some lectures where the ability to preprocess notes is more important. The former ability, however, does not preclude the latter.
This means that it is a question of judgment and discipline, whether to type a lot or a little. If you're good at that, you're better with a laptop. If you're bad at it, you may be better with paper.
> Additionally, you've just pissed off the people in the lecture that are more respectful of their classmates. I paid for the class, I don't see why I should suffer so that somebody else can type during my class time.
Simply Not True. Nobody in a law school class gets angry because someone else is taking notes.
What can be distracting is when someone in front of you is surfing the web, checking the news, etc... during class and sometimes people get a little annoyed about that. But they don't get angry. What would be the point?
Also, yes, there are times when a diagram is more useful than text--but the times are very rare (Perhaps a few times a semester) and software deals with them adequately.
You can do flowcharts and the like, but it's not convenient. If you have to diagram something once per class or less, you're fine with the laptop--but if it's every five minutes you have a problem.
Absolutely--there's very little that's diagrammatic and when there is, accuracy is almost never important. But you have notes on thousands of pages with a high notes-per-page density, plus classnotes, so a laptop is usually the way to go.
I'd imagine this applies across some of the arts and most of the social sciences to a lesser degree.
At law school, everyone uses laptops. It's a different world than the world of pen and paper. There are a very few students who still take notes the old-fashioned way, and they do remarkably well sometimes, but the simple fact is that when you have a particularly intense class you can get down a lot more information typing than you can with pen and paper.
You still have to be disciplined--turning off your network devices can be helpful, and you also have to avoid taking notes just because everyone else is. (There are times when one person starts typing, then another, and it snowballs, even when there's nothing noteworthy being discussed.) But if you use the laptop as a tool, it's a very effective one. It also lets you learn a bit more, because you can actually do some outside research during class which enriches it for everyone.
Common law is mostly irrelevant to copyright. Copyright is almost entirely statutory. (i.e. passed by the legislature rather than judge-made law that derives from centuries of doctrine in England). While there are some old cases (there was one between the AP and another news aggregator that was effectively a "scraper" of AP-published news content during WW1), for the most part the copyright law says whatever Disney pays your Congressman to make it say.
The goal is to reduce emissions. At least in theory, a market-based system for doing that, with a hard number of credits available, should succeed in limiting (or reducing) emissions. (Provided that you don't abolish other current regulation limiting emission in any given area.) Allowing people to buy and sell credits then rewards companies that are efficient (because they can sell credits) and penalizes companies that are inefficient (because they need to buy more credits.)
Check out the Supermax prisons in the US. The European Court of Human Rights barely allowed less restrictive conditions to be used for the Jackall (Big terrorist honcho from the 70s); Supermax prisons are effectively permanent solitary. Which does horrible things to the brain--effectively, it's torture by omission.
The public's support for that particular snippet of the state of the union was rather low, as CNN reported--so kindly point out to your non-tech friends that nuclear is the best alternative right now and we can't go entirely renewable for a long time.
> Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.
Although at a cost? This system might be useful for Universities that need to provide wireless to a hundred computers in the same room, but it would be almost useless for homes and such, where one of the big reasons to go wireless is to avoid the need to rewire the house. To use a 1 Gbps signal, you'd need a hard-line to the room.
The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.
Still, there are a few niches where this would be useful, and it sounds like a really fun idea to develop.
No comment on the technical legality of Amazon's de-listing, but it's certainly an abuse of power by conventional standards. What we might call "strong-arming." And yes, refusing to sell merchandise can be strong-arming when you're by far the dominant seller.
The real question is what the goal of copyright law is. If the goal is to encourage innovation and ensure property owners get paid when their work is used, then there's no need for huge punitive damages. (You still want some, because the system can't send everybody who breaks the law a bill, since it doesn't know who they are, so it has to discourage people from breaking the law.) But if we somehow feel that this is a fundamental and huge violation of the copyright rights and that those rights are very highly valued by our society, then an extreme penalty might be justified. In either case, as the court rightly pointed out, $54K is more than sufficient. (Especially absent showing of commercialization or massive redistribution.)
Personally, I'm a fan of a sort of sliding scale of copyright protections--enough to encourage anyone to innovate, but not so much that things don't enter the public domain. When someone has made the greater of $10M or Cost+100% on an artistic work, it should either enter the public domain automatically or be licensable for a nominal amount. (Perhaps the percentage or absolute amount will vary based on the kind of work.)
Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, all though there were less people using devices while driving. An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries. Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.
Study 1: Cellphone use is "linked" to a four-fold increase in crash injuries. Study 2: There is a correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes. Study 3: After laws banning cell-phone use were enacted, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change.
These studies, as summarized in the summary, are not inconsistent. Fluctuations in crash rates need not change in order for the overall number of crashes to change. Injuries are not the same as conversation or even accidents, and a difference in the quantity of injuries may reflect something as simple as not holding the wheel with both hands. And you don't say the correlation is positive.
Okay, maybe the last is implied--but still, could we try to be a bit more specific before implying conclusions that would, if true, justify major policy changes?
Never assume about your medical professionals, at least not when it comes to surgery or cancer. Get referrals from people in the field who know what they're talking about. If you can understand it, read the relevant literature yourself and ask intelligent questions about your cancer. Well-respected surgeons can be terrible in the OR and highly-published doctors can fail to read the patient's chart. Most doctors try to do a good job--and they deserve respect for that. But if the doctor's attention isn't squarely on your case when you're in front of him, if he's not thinking about you, your options and the medical facts, if he's not up on the relevant literature... keep your eyes out for warning signs. Trust him up to a point, but get a second opinion if anything seems out of whack--and maybe otherwise. The fact is, medicine is a demanding thing to do well, and despite how hard it is to get into medical school, somehow, there's still a lot of bad medicine out there.
Above all, be respectful. Not only is it usually deserved on one level or another, but it can make a difference in the quality of care you receive and the frankness of the answers you receive. Because medicine is a highly political field.
Note: This is my personal opinion, and I am not a doctor, so do what you'd like; but if it were me, I'd do something like this.
The judge isn't usually worried about defusing the situation, so much as he's worried about (1) what the law is, (2) to the extent that the law is unclear, what law is most consistent with the rationales for existing law, (3) taking into account the countervailing social policy considerations (i.e. recognizing damage to the record companies was greater than costs and approved by the legislature, but that $2M is insane, and that 54K is still a big punishment), and (4) not getting overruled by the court above him.
Of course judges have their own beliefs that influence their understanding of what the law ought to be and how they interpret it, but for the most part they're just trying to understand the problem and do the right thing under the law.
> Any simple solution to a complex problem is wrong.
Either false or a tautology. For example, if one runs a prison and has no money for more guards or walls or floodlights, so people keep cutting through the fence and coming in to break people out or smuggle drugs, a simple solution may prove very effective for the short-term: buy a couple of chickens and put them around the prison. They'll go crazy whenever anyone noses around, and you suddenly have a cheap alarm system. (True story.)
In the alternative, a complex problem may by definition be one that has no simple solution.
In this case, the simple solution to a complex problem is to have an option to pay for music using alternative methods--dollars (or pennies) to buy a song, dollars for a subscription service, time in the form of advertisements or saleable tasks. And songs released into the public domain once they're a certain number of years old or have earned a certain number of dollars.
Call one of the national NGOs whose purpose you support and ask where you would be useful, or if there are regional orgs or offices that do something similar where you are that maybe you can help out at. For example, if you want to help with modern day slavery (about 200K teens in the US are at high risk of being trafficked each year), try calling the Polaris Project. They can probably either let you know a few orgs near where you are or get back to you within a few days.
Unicycling clown? Unicycling clown? Back in my day, we had to walk uphill to college for miles while dodging unicycling elephants who came downhill. (It may sound absurd, but it makes sense--after all, can you imagine a unicycling elephant going uphill?)
More seriously, it seems to me that the important part of the test isn't necessarily whether you saw the unicycling elephant (or clown), but whether you detected the unicycling clown or elephant as an object that must be avoided. When one is walking in a crowded area or even driving, while there may be objects you consciously see, there are also a lot of obstacles that you navigate without thinking about it or that you see peripherally but don't think about. The important part is whether it affects your navigation. So if, for example, anyone collides with the unicycling elephant (or clown), then it might be appropriate to make a regulation about driving while talking on a cellphone in the vicinity of unicycling clowns...
Your third category, stuff that gets taken from a private place, is protected by the Fourth Amendment in the US: it gives us the right to be free from "unreasonable" search and seizure. Like most of our civil rights, it grew significantly during the Civil Rights era in the middle of the last (20th) century and has had many holes punched in it in the years since. Our Supreme Court was expansionist about such rights in that era in order to stop racist police from abusing power. The problem is most of the expanded civil rights are used the vast majority of the time today to make people go free who are absolutely guilty--the vast majority of arguments about civil liberties are made by drug dealers and criminals, and maybe one in ten thousand are made by honest citizens. These liberties help keep our police forces much more professional than they would otherwise be, but seeing them used to let the guilty go free time and time again makes the Supreme Court slowly carve out exceptions.
Ok, first off, I am a Police Officer in the state of Oklahoma (I know each state is different...) so with that being said, the search of a closed container during an arrest is for safety/inventory purposes.
I have never even thought I had a right to examine the contents of the phone past the initial screen (no pushing buttons, etc) OR a flash drive with out a warrant. Even when I server a search warrant on a house to retrieve and search electronic storage devices I must always specify that I will be searching the contents of every object found including any phones, disk, computers, cameras, etc. If, during my warranted search I find evidence of the suspect using an online e-mail service (I.E. g-mail) I must again obtain a warrant for this service as well. This is to protect the peoples right to freedom of speach. If I can not convince the judge that the suspect was using the service to conduct illegal activity pertaining to my previous warrant then the Judge will not grant my warrant. In my opinion this is perfectly logical!
If I am arresting some one for suspicion of dealing narcotics, I can justify a warrant on the phone to look for contacts, messages, etc. If I am arresting them for DUI, what reason could I have for needing to search the contents of the phone? If I am sworn to protect the public, I am just as sworn to protect the civil rights of the public! If I go to a neighboring city/state I would expect the same protection.
IANAL, but I believe the requirement to get the warrant for the online email service actually arises out of the same Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure that requires one to get a warrant to search a house. In Zurcher v. Stanford Daily the Supreme Court rejected the idea that there was in independent First Amendment bar to the scope of a search, although it did suggest that courts should be more rigorous about Fourth Amendment analysis in cases that implicated the First Amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Gamers sometimes learn bad fictional behavior. (Consider the evil character paths in various D&D games.) Gamers frequently learn good fictional behavior. (Consider the hero character paths in many D&D games.)
In contrast, a chapter of Hell's Angels in Hamburg ran multiple houses for the rape of teenage girls and women held as slaves. (Sources: Victor Malarek's The Natashas, Terry Lee Wright's River of Innocents.) They were responsible for enabling thousands of rapes in the real world.
Yes, it's atypical for a biker gang. But all things considered, it's more rare for the gamer.
> Given the critical importance of hard disk storage in all of our lives, we thought you might want a peek under that hood, too.
Careful... what if you open the hard disk and there's a mouse inside who's been remembering it all for you? Then he sees you and realizes "Oh, crap, we need to do the experiment all over. Vogons! Oh, Vogons! Where are you...."
And then. Will come. The poetry.
Can write cursive. Can't write shorthand, but can write cursive. But between writing rushed cursive for two hours v. typing, I prefer the latter and get much more information down.
> File sharing is also only one step away from human sharing, or human trafficking as you name it.
Note, for those who don't know: Human Trafficking is modern-day slavery. In the US alone, several hundred thousand teens are at high risk for being trafficked each year. (Sources: Polaris Project; National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.)
>I type far faster than most of the populace when I want to, but part of the point of pen and paper is that you have to think about what it is that you're writing.
I respectfully disagree--the point of pen and paper is to use them, as a tool, in this case to take notes. They have advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is that the limitation on the quantity of notes you can take forces you to preprocess your notes more thoroughly. The corresponding disadvantage is that you can take fewer notes. There are some lectures where the ability to take notes rapidly is the more important quality, and there are some lectures where the ability to preprocess notes is more important. The former ability, however, does not preclude the latter.
This means that it is a question of judgment and discipline, whether to type a lot or a little. If you're good at that, you're better with a laptop. If you're bad at it, you may be better with paper.
> Additionally, you've just pissed off the people in the lecture that are more respectful of their classmates. I paid for the class, I don't see why I should suffer so that somebody else can type during my class time.
Simply Not True. Nobody in a law school class gets angry because someone else is taking notes.
What can be distracting is when someone in front of you is surfing the web, checking the news, etc... during class and sometimes people get a little annoyed about that. But they don't get angry. What would be the point?
Also, yes, there are times when a diagram is more useful than text--but the times are very rare (Perhaps a few times a semester) and software deals with them adequately.
You can do flowcharts and the like, but it's not convenient. If you have to diagram something once per class or less, you're fine with the laptop--but if it's every five minutes you have a problem.
Absolutely--there's very little that's diagrammatic and when there is, accuracy is almost never important. But you have notes on thousands of pages with a high notes-per-page density, plus classnotes, so a laptop is usually the way to go.
I'd imagine this applies across some of the arts and most of the social sciences to a lesser degree.
At law school, everyone uses laptops. It's a different world than the world of pen and paper. There are a very few students who still take notes the old-fashioned way, and they do remarkably well sometimes, but the simple fact is that when you have a particularly intense class you can get down a lot more information typing than you can with pen and paper.
You still have to be disciplined--turning off your network devices can be helpful, and you also have to avoid taking notes just because everyone else is. (There are times when one person starts typing, then another, and it snowballs, even when there's nothing noteworthy being discussed.) But if you use the laptop as a tool, it's a very effective one. It also lets you learn a bit more, because you can actually do some outside research during class which enriches it for everyone.
Common law is mostly irrelevant to copyright. Copyright is almost entirely statutory. (i.e. passed by the legislature rather than judge-made law that derives from centuries of doctrine in England). While there are some old cases (there was one between the AP and another news aggregator that was effectively a "scraper" of AP-published news content during WW1), for the most part the copyright law says whatever Disney pays your Congressman to make it say.
The goal is to reduce emissions. At least in theory, a market-based system for doing that, with a hard number of credits available, should succeed in limiting (or reducing) emissions. (Provided that you don't abolish other current regulation limiting emission in any given area.) Allowing people to buy and sell credits then rewards companies that are efficient (because they can sell credits) and penalizes companies that are inefficient (because they need to buy more credits.)
If you own the content and threaten to sue, it's good business. If you don't own the content and threaten to help someone sue, it's extortion.
The blackmail is despicable. But the whitemail is hardly pristine.
Check out the Supermax prisons in the US. The European Court of Human Rights barely allowed less restrictive conditions to be used for the Jackall (Big terrorist honcho from the 70s); Supermax prisons are effectively permanent solitary. Which does horrible things to the brain--effectively, it's torture by omission.
The public's support for that particular snippet of the state of the union was rather low, as CNN reported--so kindly point out to your non-tech friends that nuclear is the best alternative right now and we can't go entirely renewable for a long time.
> Light, in a room without windows, will not escape the room, improving security.
Although at a cost? This system might be useful for Universities that need to provide wireless to a hundred computers in the same room, but it would be almost useless for homes and such, where one of the big reasons to go wireless is to avoid the need to rewire the house. To use a 1 Gbps signal, you'd need a hard-line to the room.
The other point is that for most applications, it's simply unnecessary to improve over the speed of modern wireless.
Still, there are a few niches where this would be useful, and it sounds like a really fun idea to develop.
No comment on the technical legality of Amazon's de-listing, but it's certainly an abuse of power by conventional standards. What we might call "strong-arming." And yes, refusing to sell merchandise can be strong-arming when you're by far the dominant seller.
The real question is what the goal of copyright law is. If the goal is to encourage innovation and ensure property owners get paid when their work is used, then there's no need for huge punitive damages. (You still want some, because the system can't send everybody who breaks the law a bill, since it doesn't know who they are, so it has to discourage people from breaking the law.) But if we somehow feel that this is a fundamental and huge violation of the copyright rights and that those rights are very highly valued by our society, then an extreme penalty might be justified. In either case, as the court rightly pointed out, $54K is more than sufficient. (Especially absent showing of commercialization or massive redistribution.)
Personally, I'm a fan of a sort of sliding scale of copyright protections--enough to encourage anyone to innovate, but not so much that things don't enter the public domain. When someone has made the greater of $10M or Cost+100% on an artistic work, it should either enter the public domain automatically or be licensable for a nominal amount. (Perhaps the percentage or absolute amount will vary based on the kind of work.)
Despite those laws, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change after bans were enacted, all though there were less people using devices while driving. An earlier study conducted by the HLDI reported that cellphone use was directly linked to four-fold increases in crash injuries. Also independent studies done by universities have shown correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.
Study 1: Cellphone use is "linked" to a four-fold increase in crash injuries.
Study 2: There is a correlation between driving while using a phone and crashes.
Study 3: After laws banning cell-phone use were enacted, monthly fluctuations in crash rates didn't change.
These studies, as summarized in the summary, are not inconsistent. Fluctuations in crash rates need not change in order for the overall number of crashes to change. Injuries are not the same as conversation or even accidents, and a difference in the quantity of injuries may reflect something as simple as not holding the wheel with both hands. And you don't say the correlation is positive.
Okay, maybe the last is implied--but still, could we try to be a bit more specific before implying conclusions that would, if true, justify major policy changes?
Never assume about your medical professionals, at least not when it comes to surgery or cancer. Get referrals from people in the field who know what they're talking about. If you can understand it, read the relevant literature yourself and ask intelligent questions about your cancer. Well-respected surgeons can be terrible in the OR and highly-published doctors can fail to read the patient's chart. Most doctors try to do a good job--and they deserve respect for that. But if the doctor's attention isn't squarely on your case when you're in front of him, if he's not thinking about you, your options and the medical facts, if he's not up on the relevant literature... keep your eyes out for warning signs. Trust him up to a point, but get a second opinion if anything seems out of whack--and maybe otherwise. The fact is, medicine is a demanding thing to do well, and despite how hard it is to get into medical school, somehow, there's still a lot of bad medicine out there.
Above all, be respectful. Not only is it usually deserved on one level or another, but it can make a difference in the quality of care you receive and the frankness of the answers you receive. Because medicine is a highly political field.
Note: This is my personal opinion, and I am not a doctor, so do what you'd like; but if it were me, I'd do something like this.
The judge isn't usually worried about defusing the situation, so much as he's worried about (1) what the law is, (2) to the extent that the law is unclear, what law is most consistent with the rationales for existing law, (3) taking into account the countervailing social policy considerations (i.e. recognizing damage to the record companies was greater than costs and approved by the legislature, but that $2M is insane, and that 54K is still a big punishment), and (4) not getting overruled by the court above him.
Of course judges have their own beliefs that influence their understanding of what the law ought to be and how they interpret it, but for the most part they're just trying to understand the problem and do the right thing under the law.
> Any simple solution to a complex problem is wrong.
Either false or a tautology. For example, if one runs a prison and has no money for more guards or walls or floodlights, so people keep cutting through the fence and coming in to break people out or smuggle drugs, a simple solution may prove very effective for the short-term: buy a couple of chickens and put them around the prison. They'll go crazy whenever anyone noses around, and you suddenly have a cheap alarm system. (True story.)
In the alternative, a complex problem may by definition be one that has no simple solution.
In this case, the simple solution to a complex problem is to have an option to pay for music using alternative methods--dollars (or pennies) to buy a song, dollars for a subscription service, time in the form of advertisements or saleable tasks. And songs released into the public domain once they're a certain number of years old or have earned a certain number of dollars.
Call one of the national NGOs whose purpose you support and ask where you would be useful, or if there are regional orgs or offices that do something similar where you are that maybe you can help out at. For example, if you want to help with modern day slavery (about 200K teens in the US are at high risk of being trafficked each year), try calling the Polaris Project. They can probably either let you know a few orgs near where you are or get back to you within a few days.
Unicycling clown? Unicycling clown? Back in my day, we had to walk uphill to college for miles while dodging unicycling elephants who came downhill. (It may sound absurd, but it makes sense--after all, can you imagine a unicycling elephant going uphill?)
More seriously, it seems to me that the important part of the test isn't necessarily whether you saw the unicycling elephant (or clown), but whether you detected the unicycling clown or elephant as an object that must be avoided. When one is walking in a crowded area or even driving, while there may be objects you consciously see, there are also a lot of obstacles that you navigate without thinking about it or that you see peripherally but don't think about. The important part is whether it affects your navigation. So if, for example, anyone collides with the unicycling elephant (or clown), then it might be appropriate to make a regulation about driving while talking on a cellphone in the vicinity of unicycling clowns...
Dear sir,
If we twisted the cable around the earth, and the cable was connected to the moon on the other end, we could tow the moon back here.
Whichever country it landed on would then be the largest country in the world. (Although it would also be squished.)
We could use this technique to explore space cheaply.
I will authorize funding for space exploration only if this method is used.
Regards,
Your Elected Representative
PS - As a side benefit, we can invade the moon.
Your third category, stuff that gets taken from a private place, is protected by the Fourth Amendment in the US: it gives us the right to be free from "unreasonable" search and seizure. Like most of our civil rights, it grew significantly during the Civil Rights era in the middle of the last (20th) century and has had many holes punched in it in the years since. Our Supreme Court was expansionist about such rights in that era in order to stop racist police from abusing power. The problem is most of the expanded civil rights are used the vast majority of the time today to make people go free who are absolutely guilty--the vast majority of arguments about civil liberties are made by drug dealers and criminals, and maybe one in ten thousand are made by honest citizens. These liberties help keep our police forces much more professional than they would otherwise be, but seeing them used to let the guilty go free time and time again makes the Supreme Court slowly carve out exceptions.
Ok, first off, I am a Police Officer in the state of Oklahoma (I know each state is different...) so with that being said, the search of a closed container during an arrest is for safety/inventory purposes.
I have never even thought I had a right to examine the contents of the phone past the initial screen (no pushing buttons, etc) OR a flash drive with out a warrant. Even when I server a search warrant on a house to retrieve and search electronic storage devices I must always specify that I will be searching the contents of every object found including any phones, disk, computers, cameras, etc. If, during my warranted search I find evidence of the suspect using an online e-mail service (I.E. g-mail) I must again obtain a warrant for this service as well. This is to protect the peoples right to freedom of speach. If I can not convince the judge that the suspect was using the service to conduct illegal activity pertaining to my previous warrant then the Judge will not grant my warrant. In my opinion this is perfectly logical!
If I am arresting some one for suspicion of dealing narcotics, I can justify a warrant on the phone to look for contacts, messages, etc. If I am arresting them for DUI, what reason could I have for needing to search the contents of the phone? If I am sworn to protect the public, I am just as sworn to protect the civil rights of the public! If I go to a neighboring city/state I would expect the same protection.
IANAL, but I believe the requirement to get the warrant for the online email service actually arises out of the same Fourth Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure that requires one to get a warrant to search a house. In Zurcher v. Stanford Daily the Supreme Court rejected the idea that there was in independent First Amendment bar to the scope of a search, although it did suggest that courts should be more rigorous about Fourth Amendment analysis in cases that implicated the First Amendment.