Violation of the 4th Amendment....hit me baby one more time?!?!?!?

**Alundil** · 04-20-11, 04:38 PM

ACLU: Michigan cops stealing drivers' phone data | Crave - CNET

The Michigan State Police have started using handheld machines called "extraction devices" to download personal information from motorists they pull over, even if they're not suspected of any crime. Naturally, the ACLU has a problem with this.

The devices, sold by a company called Cellebrite, can download text messages, photos, video, and even GPS data from most brands of cell phones. The handheld machines have various interfaces to work with different models and can even bypass security passwords and access some information.

Read more: ACLU: Michigan cops stealing drivers' phone data | Crave - CNET

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.

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

Absolute BS. So now simply driving and being pulled over is enough to have private, and potentially confidential, data "stolen" by "The State." Lovely. Where's Orwell when you need him?

This very much reminds me of this little ongoing saga that I mentioned a few months back:
http://www.teamplayergaming.com/news...-concerns.html

Then there's this lovely bit:
iPhone Software Tracks Location Of Users -- InformationWeek

Apple's iPhone software is storing a record of the travels of iPhone owners on their phones and on the computers used for iPhone synchronization, a practice that has renewed privacy concerns about mobile location tracking.

The data, consisting of latitude and longitude coordinates and corresponding timestamps, is stored unencrypted and, apparently, without conspicuous notification. Apple did not respond to a request to explain whether any of its user agreements cover this practice.

The existence of the iPhone tracking database was disclosed on Wednesday at the Where 2.0 conference by Alasdair Allan, an iPhone programmer and a senior research fellow in Astronomy at the University of Exeter, and Pete Warden, founder of OpenHeatMap.com and a former Apple software engineer.
....from the end of article and a very valid point....
Now that iPhone users are known to carry detailed histories of where they've been on their phones and on their computers, those in an adversarial position--litigious spouses or employers, or law enforcement personnel, for example--may choose to seek location data where it is readily accessible rather than attempting to pry it from a mobile service provider through legal process.

**Red_Lizard2** · 04-20-11, 04:45 PM

Should be shocked, but this is the State who says the Governor can dissolve any local government he wants.

**deathgodusmc** · 04-20-11, 05:00 PM

WOW thats to fucked up to even think about. How in the hell do they think that would stand up in court?

**SmokenScion** · 04-20-11, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

WOW thats to fucked up to even think about. How in the hell do they think that would stand up in court?

it won't and their willing to circumvent/break the law to prevent it(from going to court).
On a side note, or just an assessment of opinions, but "What If" this was occurring in Arizona under the guise of Illegal Immigration?

**deathgodusmc** · 04-20-11, 05:12 PM

There's a big difference. One is a blatant 4th amendment violation againt citizens of the US and the other is asking if someone is a citizen of the US. However i do see you point but the scanning of a phone wouldn't really prove if someone is here illegally.

**SmokenScion** · 04-20-11, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

There's a big difference. One is a blatant 4th amendment violation againt citizens of the US and the other is asking if someone is a citizen of the US. However i do see you point but the scanning of a phone wouldn't really prove if someone is here illegally.

It doesn't prove anything, unless you use your Phone to commit crimes, or Record yourself committing crimes.

**deathgodusmc** · 04-20-11, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

It doesn't prove anything, unless you use your Phone to commit crimes, or Record yourself committing crimes.

agreed

**AetheLove** · 04-20-11, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

WOW thats to fucked up to even think about. How in the hell do they think that would stand up in court?

Maybe it's a deliberate attempt to push the limits of the 4th Amendment. The idea of "things" as digital representations, transferable over networks, and infinitely replicable has fucked up lots of our definitions that apply to things. The idea of "in plain sight" used to be a workable rule of thumb, but technology has blurred lines that used to be obvious. A mockery is being made.

Cheers,

AetheLove

**Alundil** · 04-20-11, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Should be shocked, but this is the State who says the Governor can dissolve any local government he wants.

To say nothing of the State. This is the Country where "Do as I say, not as I do" is the rule de jour.

Privacy 'bill of rights' exempts government agencies | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

There is, however, one feature of the bill (PDF) sponsored by senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) that has gone relatively unnoticed: it doesn't apply to data mining, surveillance, or any other forms of activities that governments use to collect and collate Americans' personal information.

At a press conference in Washington, D.C., McCain said the privacy bill of rights will protect the "fundamental right of American citizens, that is the right to privacy." And the first sentence of the legislation proclaims that "personal privacy is worthy of protection through appropriate legislation."

But the measure applies only to companies and some nonprofit groups, not to the federal, state, and local police agencies that have adopted high-tech surveillance technologies including cell phone tracking, GPS bugs, and requests to Internet companies for users' personal information--in many cases without obtaining a search warrant from a judge.

Read more: Privacy 'bill of rights' exempts government agencies | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

But that is another good topic for the "4th Amendment" thread.

[rant on]

**deathgodusmc** · 04-20-11, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Maybe it's a deliberate attempt to push the limits of the 4th Amendment. The idea of "things" as digital representations, transferable over networks, and infinitely replicable has fucked up lots of our definitions that apply to things. The idea of "in plain sight" used to be a workable rule of thumb, but technology has blurred lines that used to be obvious. A mockery is being made.

Cheers,

AetheLove

Its possible but if you need a scanner to get information from a device you cant touch without a warrant then how in plain sight was that information you retrieved? Pretty much a slam dunk in my book on how this verdict would go.