Michigan Police Could Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops 525
SonicSpike writes "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. A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and videos off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections. 'Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,' a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities." Popular Mechanics has a short conversation with a 4th Amendment lawyer about the practice of slurping cellphone data, too, though it's unclear if the Michigan police are actually using these devices to their full potential.
Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. (Score:4, Informative)
But, speaking from experience, you can claim illegal search and seizure at preliminary trials, which can result in the charges being dropped.
It's disgusting that it happens, but it does. Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.
Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.
It takes a damn good lawyer to get a cop tried for deprivation of rights under color of law. It ought to happen every time the exclusionary rule is applied.
Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
It's not good enough to just have the evidence be ruled inadmissible. The cop ought to be fired (or worse) and compensation paid to the victim.
Re: (Score:3)
"Mistake" my ass. I have friends who work in Illinois state government. Ethical lapses can result in firing and, indeed, imprisonment if the "ethical lapse" is bad enough. Former Governor Ryan is in prison for his "ethical lapse", and former Governor Blago is headed there.
I agree with the GP. Violate a citizen's rights, go to fucking prison.
Those of us in the private sector can kill with impunity. Public sector employees cannot. Cops have great power, with power comes responsibility. Or should.
Re: (Score:3)
If "ignorance of the law" is no excuse for me, then it should be so for those expected to enforce it.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get to point a gun at people legally, stop random strangers on the street, and take them to JAIL either....
With power comes responsibility. Law Enforcement has too much leeway to claim they "believe" a crime is committed. It used to take two witnesses, then one, now they demand your phone "just to be sure" you're not doing something bad.... If they want more power, the bar for being wrong has to go up proportionally.
Re:Oh please! (Score:5, Insightful)
1) These aren't "mistakes", they're blatant violation of Citizens' civil liberties. This is like calling the actions of the Nazi SS "simple mistakes".
2) No, but I don't work for the government, nor do I carry a gun and get to shoot it at people who don't follow my orders. I'm a lowly employee of a private company, not someone in a position of authority within the government who has the right to take another person's life. If you're in a position of authority, then you have far more responsibility than anyone who isn't. If you can't handle that, then you should get another job.
Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just, rest assured, cops rarely get away with it if you have a decent lawyer.
It takes a damn good lawyer to get a cop tried for deprivation of rights under color of law. It ought to happen every time the exclusionary rule is applied.
I know an easier way to make this happen. Convince the cell phone manufacturers and service providers that laws and practices like this are hurting phone sales by removing some of the utility of the phones and making them into a potential liability. Then we'd finally have large, powerful, monied, well-represented coporate interests lobbying in our favor. Suddenly this practice would end in record time.
Re: (Score:3)
Convince the cell phone manufacturers and service providers that laws and practices like this are hurting phone sales
You consider that to be an easier way? Really?
Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. (Score:4, Funny)
Actully, any lawyer can sue for that (Score:4, Funny)
But you can't criminally prosecute police for every little misstep. Nobody would want to be a cop.
Re: (Score:3)
We're not talking about missteps. This isn't an officer forgetting to read you your rights or doing something wrong in the heat of the moment. We're talking about deliberate, willful and premeditated breach of a constitutional amendment.
yes, but do they archive that data? (Score:2)
yes, but do they archive that data? what do they do with that data? would that data be later used against you in a different case?
Re: (Score:3)
All data is archived somewhere. Data is sexy. No one in authority can resist troves of data for long.
Re:yes, but do they archive that data? (Score:5, Funny)
Data is sexy.
Tasha? Is that you?
Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people do not go after the officers for deprivation of civil rights under color of authority (USC 1983 violation), which leaves them with civil and criminal liability and also bars their unions and departments of the ability to pay their legal fees. If more people would file these lawsuits against officers who violate their rights the practice would end very quickly.
Power that can be abused will be abused. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, those "trouble makers" would be marked and "eliminated" as quickly as possible. Imagine the dispatcher decides to ... "accidentally" forget for a few minutes that you called for help when someone is invading your home, or the patrol car that has been dispatched decided to ... take the "scenic route" to your home while you're being robbed at gun point.
No, I don't have any faith in the le
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Police are for filling out paperwork and investigating a crime that has already happened. They are not bodyguards. Except for rare coincidences when they happen to be present when a crime is committed they cannot protect anyone. In my experience, most police are well meaning people that try to help. People just need to keep their expectation of what the police should do in line with the reality of what is possible. The point of having them is to catch the people that have already commited crimes so th
Re:Power that can be abused will be abused. (Score:4, Insightful)
they can take their sweet time if they want, the dead criminal isn't going anywhere.
Re:No, most cities MUST pay legal fees (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps you should brush up on the law and understand the legal meaning of "shall be liable"? Qualified immunity does not apply when you knowingly violate someones civil rights, it is only a protection when there is "good faith", furthermore there should be no such thing as qualified immunity since it goes against the equal protection part of the 14th Amendment. You see, police are no different from regular citizens, and as such they should have no special protections under the law.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1983 [findlaw.com]
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable
to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought
against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such
officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted
unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was
unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress
applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
That says that they are personally liable, not the department that they work for, and not their union. Officers effectively lose all legal protection from both their department and their union when they have a USC 1983 civil rights lawsuit filed against them (these cases only move forward when there is no qualified immunity). However, should the officer win, they can recover legal fees from the plaintiff. I know LA thinks they make the law but they do not, they've been smacked down several times for trying to play by their own rules.
Reading comp fail, law fail (Score:3)
As for the second part, stop impersonating a lawyer. You really don't know what the hell you are talking about. Nothing in that section precludes a state or city from indemnifying a police officer (stop saying "department," cities pay lawsuits, not departments), and California law [onecle.com] requires the city defend the police officer, and most local codes r
Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, speaking from experience, you can claim illegal search and seizure at preliminary trials, which can result in the charges being dropped..
Only if it is an illegal search.
If the cop asks "You don't mind if I check your phone, do you?" and you don't say "No, I do not consent to a search" (the cops often phrase it in an odd way to make it not clear if "Yes" or "No" is the correct answer, so answering in an um-ambiguous way is wise) and you actually let him search it (or your car, pockets, etc.) ... then it's not an illegal search.
Not nearly enough people realize that when the cops ask that -- the proper answer is "No, I do not consent to a search". If you don't have anything to hide and you're SURE of that, then I guess you can let him search, but if there's any doubt -- absolutely not. It will *not* go easier on you.
not so easy (Score:3)
A. They search you, being in a good mood, sorry for bothering you, and eager to go do something else.
B. They detain you while waiting for a search order to be rubber stamped by an uncaring judge, then search you while pissed off that you dared to challenge their authority.
Your choice.
OUTRAGEOUS cost (Score:5, Informative)
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.
emphasis mine. ACLU put in a FOIA, police wanted $544,680 to respond.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? No one, when the pay-to-play is that high...
Re: (Score:3)
Product link (Score:2, Informative)
Check out the specs on these things:
http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products.html [cellebrite.com]
"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags" and the list just goes on and on.
So, can anyone buy one of these? If it's legal for police, then...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was illegal to charge more than actual processing costs when someone files an FOIA?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was illegal to charge more than actual processing costs when someone files an FOIA?
It is, but the Chief has to buy a summer house to "process and fulfill" the FOIA request in.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if they have 54468 cases on record, and they set the processing fee at $10/case...
Re: (Score:2)
What do you want to bet the company that makes the unit charges per record or per phone pulled out of it. That would let the police hide the transaction cost in the normal budget instead of adding it to the equipment budget and the company would make a freaking fortune.
Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost (Score:5, Interesting)
My dad likes to file FOIA requests when the police in his home town (of 1 million people) do something illegal. They frequently quote absurd fees, after which he leaves and comes back with an officer of the court who makes them do it for free. He should have been a lawyer. Or maybe the world is better off with one fewer lawyer and one more electrical engineer.
Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost (Score:5, Interesting)
My dad likes to file FOIA requests when the police in his home town (of 1 million people) do something illegal. They frequently quote absurd fees, after which he leaves and comes back with an officer of the court who makes them do it for free. He should have been a lawyer. Or maybe the world is better off with one fewer lawyer and one more electrical engineer.
Seriously, cops seem to wonder why they're not better appreciated and respected. No sense of irony.
As a whole, it's not like the police have a great deal of respect for citizens who exercise their rights. So I have to wonder: do they retaliate? Do they suddenly take a really hard look at his driving and see how many things they can charge him with that they'd normally let slide? Do they insist on searching him for guns/drugs/dead hookers/etc. every time he gets pulled over for i.e. speeding?
Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost (Score:5, Interesting)
"As a whole, it's not like the police have a great deal of respect for citizens who exercise their rights. So I have to wonder: do they retaliate? Do they suddenly take a really hard look at his driving and see how many things they can charge him with that they'd normally let slide? Do they insist on searching him for guns/drugs/dead hookers/etc. every time he gets pulled over for i.e. speeding?"
Probably.
A friend of mine went to court to get out of a speeding ticket. I'm guessing it was a fairly high-priced ticket, because when he was successful, the police waited a year or more, then filed a completely made-up charge of "driving without a license" (he was in his late 30s, and had been a licensed driver for several decades). The charge/requirement to show up in court was mailed to him... at his old address, because he'd moved during the time in-between those two events.
When he didn't show up in court (because he never received the thing that was mailed to his old address), he automatically lost, and an *additional* count of "flight to evade prosecution" was added. But he still didn't know about any of this. He found out when he was pulled over something like *another* year or two later for an illegal lane change in an intersection. At that point he was immediately taken into custody and sent to jail (because clearly he was a convicted felon with no respect for the law). He talked to a lawyer and was told that because judgment had already taken place (back when the original bogus charge made its uncontested court appearance), it would cost something like $30K to contest it. It was cheaper for him to spend three months in county jail.
So yeah, the police don't exactly have any reservations about abusing the system if they feel that it's being done to punish someone they believe deserves it.
Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost (Score:5, Informative)
Guess i'm going to call you a liar.
At least where I live to be called to court someone has to HAND deliver the letter to you. Most people filing a claim against someone they don't care for will pay a few bucks to have the sheriffs department deliver the notice.(I don't remember the price to have the cops deliver it for you but I thought it was very cheap. Doubly so if you don't like the person and have the deliver it to the persons work) But there isn't anything like sending a letter to an address you lived at at one point in your life and claiming you were notified.
If that's the way the courts work where you live you need to get that changed, it's wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. Lying. Or whomever told him the story was.
You can have a bench warrant posted for not paying or appearing for a ticket that *you signed* (which means you were given notice).
No notice, no warrant, no arrest.
Re: (Score:3)
Guess i'm going to call you a liar.
At least where I live to be called to court someone has to HAND deliver the letter to you. Most people filing a claim against someone they don't care for will pay a few bucks to have the sheriffs department deliver the notice.(I don't remember the price to have the cops deliver it for you but I thought it was very cheap. Doubly so if you don't like the person and have the deliver it to the persons work) But there isn't anything like sending a letter to an address you lived at at one point in your life and claiming you were notified.
If that's the way the courts work where you live you need to get that changed, it's wrong.
Wrong, something similar happened to me, because of a corrupt Maryland State's Attorney. I was fortunate that (a) my dad is a cop (which helped in preventing them from dragging out "extradition" from VA where I got pulled over to MD) and (b) the desk sergent where I was "booked" after "extradition" was a kindly old guy with full access to the court records, who printed me out everything so I could show the judge that the State's Attorney was a lying deceitful asshole who never served me at my MD address as
Re: (Score:3)
There's a *slight* difference in how it works between a collections (civil) case and a criminal one. Specifically that whole "being served" thing.
Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost (Score:4, Interesting)
I second the ridiculousness of our politicians. I was ("recently") served notice that I had to pay my car's excise tax (yes, this is a tax you pay annually, for the luxury of keeping your car in your possession).
"Recently" is in scare quotes, because the notice was served similarly to Arthur Dent's house destruction notice: I found it while walking through the yard after the snow had cleared, it was an envelope under a bush. I thought, "Huh, someone's trash blew in, better pick it up" and then saw my name on the front. It was addressed to me, at my address, and in the place of the stamp said "hand deliver only" and it had two scotch tape pieces diagonally across the front, as if it had been taped to my front door.
So much is wrong with this. They could have taped it inside the storm door, and it would not have blown off. They could have paid the going rate of $0.44 and it would have gotten to me without going through my bushes and the winter; instead they likely paid someone $8 to deliver this piece of extortion.
The saving grace is that the bill is due in the future, so they weren't able to rake me over the coals in e.g. February for not getting the notice that they "hand-delivered" in December. Fucking morons.
Cognitive dissonance theory in action (Score:4, Informative)
Related book on why so many police officers take to planting evidence and forcing inaccurate confessions: ,,,"
"Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts"
http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0151010986 [amazon.com]
"Why do people refuse to admit mistakes - so deeply that they transform their own brains? They're not kidding themselves: they really believe what they have to believe to justify their original thought.
There are some pretty scary examples in this book. Psychologists who refuse to admit they'd bought into the false memory theories, causing enormous pain. Politicians. Authors. Doctors. Therapists. Alien abduction victims.
Most terrifying: The justice system operates this way. Once someone is accused of a crime - even under the most bizarre circumstances - the police believe he's guilty of something. Even when the DNA shows someone is innocent, or new evidence reveals the true perpetrator, they hesitate to let the accused person go free.
And progressively that can lead police officers down a route of progressive desensitization where they start planting evidence on more and more people until they plant evidence on anyone they have any suspicions about...
Re:OUTRAGEOUS cost (Score:4, Informative)
As a whole, it's not like the police have a great deal of respect for citizens who exercise their rights. So I have to wonder: do they retaliate? Do they suddenly take a really hard look at his driving and see how many things they can charge him with that they'd normally let slide?
Take it from someone who works in law enforcement (not a cop, support staff): Yes, yes they do. And they brag about it to each other and to those of us who work behind the scenes. It's disgusting, and it's one of the things that forces me to weigh my conscience against the near-Utopian benefits package. If my part time job could even come close to the same level of benefits I'd leave law enforcement for good.
Wire? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that most new phones are using either mini or micro USB jacks.
Re:Wire? (Score:5, Informative)
Erase your phone (Score:5, Informative)
According to http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2110 [apple.com], you want to own an iPhone 3GS or later.
You can remove all settings and information from your iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch using "Erase All Content and Settings" in Settings > General > Reset.
When you opt to "Erase All Content and Settings," the process can take up to several hours. The time this process takes will vary by device:
Devices that support hardware encryption: Erases user settings and information by removing the encryption key to the data. This process takes just a few minutes.
Devices that overwrite memory: Overwrites user settings and information, writing a series of ones to the data partition. This process can take several hours, depending on the storage capacity of your iPhone or iPod touch. During this time, the device displays the Apple logo and a progress bar.
F$%K That! (Score:2)
That's nice and all...
But at what point are all these spineless citizens going to stand up and say 'enough of this shit!'
You know what would be even nicer? To be able to go about my daily life without some jackboot thinking he has any right whatsoever so look at any of my belongings on the spot.
In fact, here is a deal for the 'police'. Immediately allow full and public access to ANY of your dash cams, at any moment, by request. You are supposed to be serving the public, so it would be nice of us to be able
Re: (Score:2)
Poor AC. Too bad outrage doesn't matter as much as it used to.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that'll help you when you're pulled over in Michigan. Add obstruction of justice to the charges, wiseguy.
Re:Erase your phone (Score:4, Interesting)
You're not obstructing justice if you're not a suspect or a material witness ... IANAL.
That question you see lawyers ask on TV all the time? You should ask it. "Am I being charged with something officer?"
Of course, people are afraid of police abuse (for good reason) and just do what's asked of them anyway.
IMHO the police should realize who they serve.
Re: (Score:2)
Just say (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Not good to give false information to a cop but you are not required to give information that might incriminate you either.
You could say nothing or:
"I do not consent to searches, am I free to do now?"
or just:
"am I free to go now".
Re:Just say (Score:5, Insightful)
Not good to give false information to a cop but you are not required to give information that might incriminate you either.
You could say nothing or:
"I do not consent to searches, am I free to do now?"
or just:
"am I free to go now".
That "I do not consent to searches" is key. A lot of times the cops will phrase the question as "do you mind if we search your car?" If you say "no" they take that to mean "no, I don't mind" and if you say "yes" they take it to mean "yes you may search". Saying you do not consent to a search removes this ambiguity.
It's some sad times we live in that such a concern would ever cross the minds of a regular citizen who is not a career criminal.
Re:Just say (Score:4, Insightful)
It's some sad times we live in that such a concern would ever cross the minds of a regular citizen who is not a career criminal.
Right; because innocent people never got hung back in the good ol' days.
What planet are you living on, anyway?
Re:Just say (Score:4, Informative)
Once you're arrested, you can be searched sans warrant. Once you're arrested, your car can be impounded, and your entire vehicle can be "inventory" searched.
Your car can also be searched sans warrant based on probable cause of any criminal activity, even if you aren't arrested.
Better hope the courts decide your phone is more like a footlocker or a trunk, but good luck with that. The Supreme Court, over the course of about a dozen major Fourth Amendment decisions, has taken a dim view of your right to privacy while in your automobile.
IAAL.
Re: (Score:3)
IAAL.
Are you a criminal defense attorney that defends traffic violations? I'm going to guess that you are not, because most of what you wrote disagrees with the advice given by experts in this area of law.
Why advise a motorist to withhold consent to a search if the officer could just arrest him and perform the search anyway? Why would the officer even waste time requesting consent to search if it is not required? Why do many jurisdictions have a consent form for the motorist to sign that affirms his consent to t
Re: (Score:3)
You have a first amendment right to lie. Doesn't mean the government respects it.
Encrypt it... (Score:2)
Re:Encrypt it... (Score:4, Informative)
1201(e) exempts law enforcement.
waste of money (Score:2)
Use of such a device on motorists would be a clear 4th amendment violation. Courts have ruled that police can only search for items that would relate/be evidence to the crime committed There is little chance your phone data is relavent to an illegal lane change.
Re: (Score:2)
There is little chance your phone data is relavent to an illegal lane change.
The police would presumably argue that they need the data to verify that you weren't distracted by using your phone when you made that lane change. Hence they need your call history, you text messages, all your photos and videos, etc... just in case.
Re: (Score:3)
It has already been upheld that police can only search items that are in plain view during a traffic stop absent probable cause. What probable cause would they have to search your phone? Not to mention you can toss it in a glove box and at that point they will need a your permission, a warrant, or to impound the car in order to search it. I really hope the ACLU gives them the smack down in US Supreme Court over this.
Re: (Score:2)
Glove box is a bad choice, because they are legally permitted to request license and registration, plus in much of the country insurance information. So if you've got any of those things in the glove box like many people do, they're still likely to see it as they do watch when you reach in their.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only true if they have a reason to suspect that you are in violation of a law specifically prohibiting the use of cell phones (which Michigan doesn't have*) or violated another traffic law with the use of a cell phone (i.e. distracted driving). Most of the time they don't have enough evidence to support a distracted driving charge and you'll receive a ticket for a specific violation like speeding or drifting across lane lines. This type of device, if used appropriately, could provide evidence in t
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not courts have ruled any search beyond what is viewable requires a warrant unless it relates to the crime in question. That is if you robbed a bank they can search for a gun. If your driving without a license they can't search anything.
it's a trap (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That could be considered a booby trap by the DA, I wouldn't risk it. You'll especially be in trouble if your device causes injury to any of the officers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it's a trap (Score:5, Interesting)
That was my first idea, too -- what happens when a 1500 mAh battery discharges into the data pins in 2 seconds? While smoking one of their multihousand dollar devices sounds like a good idea, I'm sure it would cause other problems..
A better idea is a device that mimics the data protocol of the phone model it represents but instead outputs 1000 or more times of data, ideally canned data, like copies of the constitution, video of the Rodney King beating, etc
Lock down your phone (Score:2)
Looking through the manual, the device can read data through bluetooth, cable, or SIM card. It also requires an app installed for smartphones other than Symbian and Blackberries. Those running CDMA phones with bluetooth off and a password lock activated should be safe(r) from this machine.
Remember when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Americans wouldn't put up with this Soviet crap?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was anti-Soviet crap when we did it before to hunt down the red menace. Now we do it to hunt down the terrorists and drug dealers.
Re: (Score:3)
Won't work on mine... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it even real? (Score:2)
Is this device even real or could it be a fake like the expensive handheld detector where you inserted a polaroid? How about all the money the feds paid to the guy who claimed Al Queda was broadcasting hidden messages and only his software could decode it? Just saying'.
CAN is not the same as ARE (Score:2, Flamebait)
The title of the story says they ARE doing this. The body of the article gives NO evidence that they are doing it, just that they have a box with the capability to read a cell phone in a short period of time.
Yes, so what if the CAN do it? They should be able to do it when it is necessary and legal. If they find a dead body and a cellphone in the pocket, they should be able to get data from it as fast as possible. That means the device should be with t
Very true (Score:3)
However I'll give a bit of credit in that the police are clearly stonewalling the ACLU and why are they doing that if they've not been doing something they shouldn't with the devices?
The FOIA request is legit, they aren't even contesting that. They are just trying to set a price so high the ACLU will go away, a price much higher than it actually costs to process the request.
If there was nothing going on, if they were using these as they should (as in when there is reason to suspect someone is using their ce
Freedom is a fickle thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Should this be allowed to stand, traffic stops will become a new tool for police to conduct what would in any other context be considered illegal suspicionless searches. It's bad enough they can do this at the border for reasons unrelated to airline security, but now they want to get away with it anywhere in the country.
When citizens take freedom for granted it becomes way too easy for the government to take those freedoms away. It's also way too easy to forget the sacrifices of generations past and sit idly by as the government flushes people's freedom down the toilet.
Re: (Score:2)
Should this be allowed to stand,
Should WHAT be allowed to stand? This unsupported allegation? That's all you are dealing with here. The article says they CAN do something, not that they ARE doing it.
They have GUNS, too. They CAN shoot you. They have nightsticks they CAN whack you on the head with. They have a device they CAN read your cellphone with during a traffic stop.
When the ACLU or anyone else provides even a shred of evidence that they ARE doing this, then you can rant and moan and rave about how awful it is. Otherwise, you're w
Re: (Score:3)
Should this be allowed to stand, traffic stops will become a new tool for police to conduct what would in any other context be considered illegal suspicionless searches.
From what I hear (from Leo Laporte on This Week in Tech podcast), the police can already request (for a nominal fee) many data from your cell phone carrier. Data such as geolocation, time of phone call and number called are not considered "content" like an actual phone conversation is, and thus have a much lower hurdle as far as the law goes.
See these [arstechnica.com] two [arstechnica.com] Ars Technica articles for more info, including this gem:
Soghoian describes how "the government routinely obtains customer records from ISPs detailing the telephone numbers dialed, text messages, emails and instant messages sent, web pages browsed, the queries submitted to search engines, and geolocation data, detailing exactly where an individual was located at a particular date and time."
I don't see this new tool as that big a boon to cops from the standpoint of normal folks. I can
Any GPL'ed Software On it? (Score:2)
This thing seems to read quite a few different filesystems and has lots of connectivity options. I supposed that could all be hacked up from scratch, and I didn't see any GPL'ed software on their website.
Who has access to one of these things to do a dump?
It's simple really (Score:2)
Officer: "May I search your car?"
You: "No, you may not."
Done.
You should NEVER, EVER, EVER allow an officer of the law, under any circumstances what-so-ever, to search your person, your belongings, or your car. Clearly this includes your mobile phone as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't mean they won't make up a reason to search you anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Well after you are done paying $1000's in traffic violations, let me know if it was worth it. He could simply claim he thought you were texting, bam, probable cause.
Yes, worth it.
encryption? (Score:2)
Could this not be defeated with encryption? Is there something out there for Android?
Every now and then, I get a fresh reminder of why I really hate police.
forget ACLU (Score:3)
Information is power (Score:3)
The information on the phone alone is worth its weight in gold even if the police can't officially 'keep' it.
The information on the phones could be very useful if you *cough cough* happen to pull over someone with a criminal background. Let's say there's some dealer you've been after. You pull him over. Hey, this is a 55 and you were going 56 maybe 65 or I don't really care you're getting pulled over. No charges or pressed but you don't care. You just want the damn phone. Now you have it.
Now a detective or narc would now have a list of that dealer's network. Probably some clients calling him. And a whole miscellany of information that would be invaluable to a detective. Wether or not you believe police don't 'randomly' pull over people, this is all the motivator to do it.
They probably don't care if they can legally keep the information. Or even care to use the information to build up a case. The information on that phone alone can open up a whole dragnet I won't even begin to write about. Keeping a digital copy of the info is probably not legal. But if a detective comes upon the information before they are notified they had to get rid of it and makes "mental notes" its going to be awfully hard to cook up a case proving the officer had or had not seen illegally obtained information.
Re: (Score:2)
That's great. But soon all Nokia fones will be Windows Phone 7 with a backdoor for police conveniently built in.
Re: (Score:2)
That only works if every phone is using the same encryption key, somehow I doubt that is the case. It is more likely that your phone will generate a key when you enable the full device encryption, since this has to be generated when you select a pass phrase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And the simple solution is... (Score:4, Informative)
All it takes is a K9 officer to fake a "tell" on your car, and they can search you. Cops lie about probable cause all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
All it takes is a K9 officer to fake a "tell" on your car, and they can search you. Cops lie about probable cause all the time.
Which is why all searches should require both that another citizen (who is not a cop) has accused you of a crime and that a judge has issued a warrant. No matter what they see or how suspicious they think it is. They keep abusing this power to the point where they don't deserve to have it.
If that means a few more criminals get away with it, so be it. I consider my government to be far more dangerous than a few individual criminals. I'd be happy to take my chances with this scenario. I'd rather criminal
Re:Those pesky Michigan people... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, just load up the phone with non-incriminating data but just make it revolting or insulting to cops to review it. It's not like the guy who pulled you over is going to sit and review all of your 8gb+ of data, or be expected to.
Load your phone full of mp3's then call the RIAA when the police "pirate" all that music. Problem solved!
Re: (Score:2)
AES-256 has been broken under some circumstances, last I checked AES-128 was considered to be more secure.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/new_attack_on_a.html [schneier.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You think everybody's dumb enough to file a motion to suppress right away. You let the cops go out dig up the bodies and collect all the evidence then you file. Everything is excluded. Unless the police can convince a judge the would have eventually looked under his pool with a scanning radar.