- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Question regarding the FBI director's threat against iOS and Android.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 9:56 pm
Posted on 10/17/14 at 9:56 pm
The 4th Amendment says:
Apple and Google are clearly providing a means by which a person may be secure in their personal effects which is clearly provided for explicitly in the 4th Amendment.
Putting aside the horseshite threats that not providing the government free access to our phones makes us unsafe, in what universe would such an action be constitutional were the government to force Apple and Google to give them access to our phones?
quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Apple and Google are clearly providing a means by which a person may be secure in their personal effects which is clearly provided for explicitly in the 4th Amendment.
Putting aside the horseshite threats that not providing the government free access to our phones makes us unsafe, in what universe would such an action be constitutional were the government to force Apple and Google to give them access to our phones?
This post was edited on 10/17/14 at 9:59 pm
4
Posted on 10/17/14 at 10:09 pm to Scoop
quote:
in what universe would such an action be constitutional were the government to force Apple and Google to give them access to our phones?
It seems absurd from any sort of objective reality; however, it's not obviously within the FBI directors self-concocted reality. That's what makes it so disturbing; a person at that level of power can so shamelessly advocate for something that absurd and show a lack of care about the rights of his country's citizens.
Posted on 10/17/14 at 10:15 pm to Scoop
quote:The Universe of Progressive Interpretation of the Constitution.
in what universe would such an action be constitutional were the government to force Apple and Google to give them access to our phones?
Posted on 10/17/14 at 10:23 pm to Scoop
The Constitution doesn't mean shite to the executive branch of the government anymore.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 2:10 am to Scoop
quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
The 4th Amendendment protects against UNREASONABLE search. If probable cause exists, through the checks and balances of government, how can you say the government should not be able to search the phone?
Let's expand the security of the new phones to computers. The police arrest a pedophile based on evidence obtained lawfully. During a post arrest interview he says that he has raped and videoed dozens of children. The videos are on his computer but he won't give consent to the police to search that computer. Police obviously have enough probable cause to search the computer and could easily obtain a lawful search warrant beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you not think it insane that the police should not have a way to search that computer?
While the previous acts of police dumping cellphones "search incident to arrest" could be argued as an invasion of privacy, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a search warrant should be obtained to search cell phones.
I think there should be a middle ground between protection of privacy and the ability of police to investigate and obtain evidence through lawful search where probable cause (with judicial oversight) coexist.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
The 4th Amendendment protects against UNREASONABLE search. If probable cause exists, through the checks and balances of government, how can you say the government should not be able to search the phone?
Let's expand the security of the new phones to computers. The police arrest a pedophile based on evidence obtained lawfully. During a post arrest interview he says that he has raped and videoed dozens of children. The videos are on his computer but he won't give consent to the police to search that computer. Police obviously have enough probable cause to search the computer and could easily obtain a lawful search warrant beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you not think it insane that the police should not have a way to search that computer?
While the previous acts of police dumping cellphones "search incident to arrest" could be argued as an invasion of privacy, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a search warrant should be obtained to search cell phones.
I think there should be a middle ground between protection of privacy and the ability of police to investigate and obtain evidence through lawful search where probable cause (with judicial oversight) coexist.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 2:48 am to LSUZouave
These justifications always seem to "appeal to emotion" and are extremely rare circumstances. It just seems disingenuous to talk about the outliers when it is something that is impacting everybody. Besides, I'm not sure your scenario is even relevant to the methods that the director was advocating for, not to mention there seems to be some leaps of logic.
So the guy will confessed. Seems like they have a pretty solid case anyways.
So he'll confess but not give consent? Possible, but you made a rare situation rarer.
In addition, you says that he won't give permission to search, yet you clearly establish, and probably every judge in America would agree, that they have probable cause to obtain a search warrant. If they are incapable of searching it with a warrant, then how would they be able to search it with his permission? Wouldn't the search be the same? Or are you saying that he would need to do the searching because he has encrypted it?
If they have evidence (especially a confession), and a valid warrant, who would say that they can't search the computer? Or are you insinuating that these systems cannot be unencrypted? My impression is that google and apple are making their systems more secure for the user, which makes it harder to compromise this security, not making an impenetrable system which I'm not sure is even possible.
It seems that this would make it harder for them to search the system, but doesn't mean they won't be able to; they will just have to work harder at it, or be more diligent in their use of resources (i.e., can't have a blanket search). The director appears to be advocating for any easy method into the system, which makes people concerned that more broad searches without probably cause will be used.
Basically, after writing this, I now realize that your example is irrelevant to this issue.
quote:
Let's expand the security of the new phones to computers. The police arrest a pedophile based on evidence obtained lawfully. During a post arrest interview he says that he has raped and videoed dozens of children.
So the guy will confessed. Seems like they have a pretty solid case anyways.
quote:
The videos are on his computer but he won't give consent to the police to search that computer. Police obviously have enough probable cause to search the computer and could easily obtain a lawful search warrant beyond a reasonable doubt. Do you not think it insane that the police should not have a way to search that computer?
So he'll confess but not give consent? Possible, but you made a rare situation rarer.
In addition, you says that he won't give permission to search, yet you clearly establish, and probably every judge in America would agree, that they have probable cause to obtain a search warrant. If they are incapable of searching it with a warrant, then how would they be able to search it with his permission? Wouldn't the search be the same? Or are you saying that he would need to do the searching because he has encrypted it?
quote:
Do you not think it insane that the police should not have a way to search that computer?
If they have evidence (especially a confession), and a valid warrant, who would say that they can't search the computer? Or are you insinuating that these systems cannot be unencrypted? My impression is that google and apple are making their systems more secure for the user, which makes it harder to compromise this security, not making an impenetrable system which I'm not sure is even possible.
It seems that this would make it harder for them to search the system, but doesn't mean they won't be able to; they will just have to work harder at it, or be more diligent in their use of resources (i.e., can't have a blanket search). The director appears to be advocating for any easy method into the system, which makes people concerned that more broad searches without probably cause will be used.
Basically, after writing this, I now realize that your example is irrelevant to this issue.
Posted on 10/18/14 at 8:45 am to LSUZouave
quote:
The 4th Amendendment protects against UNREASONABLE search. If probable cause exists, through the checks and balances of government, how can you say the government should not be able to search the phone?
The Constitution allows for something called a 'warrant'. The cops can go to a judge and show they have probable cause for the search and the judge will sign off on it. Really cool process that allows the police to search when necessary while guaranteeing that there are checks and balances to hold them accountable.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News