Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have encryption software from France. The company doesn't give the NSA/CIA/FBI the key/backdoor. It can be cracked I'm sure it's only 192 bits, but it will take several days.
I have some from Finland for the same reason. 380-some bits, based on a derivitive of the blowfish algorithm.
I think the search of electronic devices during a police stop is wrong. The precident was a search of physical objects and the two are not in any way similar. A physical object could house a weapon or other substance that could be a danger to the arresting officers and needs to be searched. Electronic information is in no way a danger and shoulr require a warrent. At most, it could be an implement in afurther crime, such as a drug dealer's phone. In that case the officers should have no trouble getting a warrant to search it. What if a person is arrested while carrying a laptop? Can it also be searched? If evidence of a "crime" such as nude pictures of a 16-year old are found can the person be charged? It is crazy and I am not surprised this ruling came from California.
I have some from Finland for the same reason. 380-some bits, based on a derivitive of the blowfish algorithm.
I think the search of electronic devices during a police stop is wrong. The precident was a search of physical objects and the two are not in any way similar. A physical object could house a weapon or other substance that could be a danger to the arresting officers and needs to be searched. Electronic information is in no way a danger and shoulr require a warrent. At most, it could be an implement in afurther crime, such as a drug dealer's phone. In that case the officers should have no trouble getting a warrant to search it. What if a person is arrested while carrying a laptop? Can it also be searched? If evidence of a "crime" such as nude pictures of a 16-year old are found can the person be charged? It is crazy and I am not surprised this ruling came from California.
As a counterpoint, there was a young woman here arrested on some charge who was a known meth user. Her cellphone was checked, revealing a phone number which led officers to a major meth lab, which they busted and arrested several people for manufacturing and intent to distribute.
As a counterpoint, there was a young woman here arrested on some charge who was a known meth user. Her cellphone was checked, revealing a phone number which led officers to a major meth lab, which they busted and arrested several people for manufacturing and intent to distribute.
What's wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with that. Having arrested the user, I am sure the police would have no difficulty in getting a warrent for her pjhone to get the dealer's number. More likely the ywould probably just flip her to turn on the dealer for a ligher sentence.
Why? Do you object to living under the rule of law?
Well when it comes to this ruling, in my opinion, it is just flat out wrong. Searches incident to arrest have been sanctioned under the reasonableness of securing the arresting officer's safety or to preserve evidence, as the dissenting Justices pointed out,
“there is apparently no ‘app’ that will turn an iPhone into an effective weapon for use against an arresting officer (and if there were, officers would presumably seek to disarm the phone rather than search its data files).”
Her cellphone was checked, revealing a phone number which led officers to a major meth lab, which they busted and arrested several people for manufacturing and intent to distribute.
What's wrong with that?
Absent any real facts it is hard to say, for example you didn't state whether or not a warrant was obtained to search the cell phone nor do you establish whether or not a warrant was obtained to search the meth lab all of which I would think were indeed granted to the police based upon standing court decisions.
Absent any real facts it is hard to say, for example you didn't state whether or not a warrant was obtained to search the cell phone nor do you establish whether or not a warrant was obtained to search the meth lab all of which I would think were indeed granted to the police based upon standing court decisions.
No warrant was issued for the cell phone, but it was for the meth lab, so far as I know.
Well when it comes to this ruling, in my opinion, it is just flat out wrong. Searches incident to arrest have been sanctioned under the reasonableness of securing the arresting officer's safety or to preserve evidence, as the dissenting Justices pointed out,
“there is apparently no ‘app’ that will turn an iPhone into an effective weapon for use against an arresting officer (and if there were, officers would presumably seek to disarm the phone rather than search its data files).”
You neglected to comment on the "preserve evidence" part of that post.
You neglected to comment on the "preserve evidence" part of that post.
I'm sorry.
If the idea was to preserve evidence, they had the cell phone in their possession and like the iPhone app that turns your phone into a lethal weapon, I know of no app that deletes its data just because some else is holding it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
