This will be struck down by the courts so fast the ink won't even be dry. Your phone is the backbone of your life and contains pretty much all of your private information and allowing police to scoop all of that up without a warrant is blatantly unconstitutional.
This might fall under probable cause justifying a search.
For example, in a traffic collision, you tailend someone: a super common cause is distracted driving. The officer might claim a search for concrete evidence of distracted driving, like if you were accessing the phone during that moment.
at the rate of which laws are changing, I wish I could believe ideas like this would be immediately struck down however I suspect more laws like this will be created to our surprise on a consistent basis.
the chief argument being, the law needs tools to protect its citizens.
the sacrifice of privacy for security has been towards security on a consistent basis for a while now, I see no reason for that to change.
By "security" you mean the euphemistic term "security" which refers to executive powers. Actual security, the non-euphemistic kind, is inseparable from privacy.
Given that, you are absolutely correct. It's not surprising that the government has gradually given itself more executive powers; governments seldom do the opposite.
caught me, I am grumbling about net-neutrality and my inability to keep up with what is going on.
the tiff between fbi and apple[0] I see as woefully unresolved. and my concern is when I hear politicians discuss it I hear in my brain the following "we need silicon valley to give us tools, they are creative and smart and I'm sure they can do it" this is not unique to D or R I actually think I recall Hillary making a comment along those lines that I do not have time to track down right now. lastly what about ISPs having their new rights to our privacy [1][2], in regards to [2] there were many that sprouted some collectecting a few hundred thousand dollars... what became of them I do not know.
I suspect some agreement with apple will be reached, or worse which I am incapable of imagining. The government persists and I do not think the general populace has the vigilance to keep up. comments like "
comments like that of Eric Schmidt (I am paraphrasing) -- Those who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to hide.. I pulled an all nighter and see myself grumbling but I feel this is coherent enough for others to fill in blanks. I feel powerless to change the current state of affairs and the trajectory we are heading.
So we might hope. But I worry that when this reaches the courts, the case will be over a collision where the driver at fault has modified their phone to resist such an intrusion...
That rule is treading a very thin line, if the government can't legally compel you to do something they are reserving the right to deny you basically every "privilege" they can. At a certain point the government could basically prevent you from being able to go about a normal life for not waiving your rights on demand for nearly anything. It seems like this specific instance is possibly on the ok side of the line, but if so just barely.
Comments
This will be struck down by the courts so fast the ink won't even be dry. Your phone is the backbone of your life and contains pretty much all of your private information and allowing police to scoop all of that up without a warrant is blatantly unconstitutional.
This might fall under probable cause justifying a search.
For example, in a traffic collision, you tailend someone: a super common cause is distracted driving. The officer might claim a search for concrete evidence of distracted driving, like if you were accessing the phone during that moment.
at the rate of which laws are changing, I wish I could believe ideas like this would be immediately struck down however I suspect more laws like this will be created to our surprise on a consistent basis.
the chief argument being, the law needs tools to protect its citizens.
the sacrifice of privacy for security has been towards security on a consistent basis for a while now, I see no reason for that to change.
By "security" you mean the euphemistic term "security" which refers to executive powers. Actual security, the non-euphemistic kind, is inseparable from privacy.
Given that, you are absolutely correct. It's not surprising that the government has gradually given itself more executive powers; governments seldom do the opposite.
At the rate which laws are changing? Can you be as specific as you can about the priors you're using to generate this conclusion?
caught me, I am grumbling about net-neutrality and my inability to keep up with what is going on.
the tiff between fbi and apple[0] I see as woefully unresolved. and my concern is when I hear politicians discuss it I hear in my brain the following "we need silicon valley to give us tools, they are creative and smart and I'm sure they can do it" this is not unique to D or R I actually think I recall Hillary making a comment along those lines that I do not have time to track down right now. lastly what about ISPs having their new rights to our privacy [1][2], in regards to [2] there were many that sprouted some collectecting a few hundred thousand dollars... what became of them I do not know.
I suspect some agreement with apple will be reached, or worse which I am incapable of imagining. The government persists and I do not think the general populace has the vigilance to keep up. comments like "
comments like that of Eric Schmidt (I am paraphrasing) -- Those who are doing nothing wrong have nothing to hide.. I pulled an all nighter and see myself grumbling but I feel this is coherent enough for others to fill in blanks. I feel powerless to change the current state of affairs and the trajectory we are heading.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/inside-th... [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/senate-puts-isp-profit... [2] https://www.gofundme.com/BuyCongressData
So we might hope. But I worry that when this reaches the courts, the case will be over a collision where the driver at fault has modified their phone to resist such an intrusion...
It would just have to be written into the terms of your license like current breathalyzer laws are right?
That rule is treading a very thin line, if the government can't legally compel you to do something they are reserving the right to deny you basically every "privilege" they can. At a certain point the government could basically prevent you from being able to go about a normal life for not waiving your rights on demand for nearly anything. It seems like this specific instance is possibly on the ok side of the line, but if so just barely.