wayneflorida 0 #1 March 7, 2012 I don't see this as a good ruling. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/06/police-given-direct-line-to-cell-phone-searches/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #2 March 7, 2012 Read a different story about this the other day and thought the same thing. However, it's a limited search right now. They can turn it on and maybe thumb through the history and directory, but doesn't give them the right to say, attempt to break through any and all security measures including the password lock to turn it on, if I read that part correctly. What I will never understand is why a high level criminal or terrorist would ever possess a smart phone anyway. They're essentially GPS tracking and bugging devices. They'd be far better off buying throw away phones with cash.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #3 March 7, 2012 QuoteWhat I will never understand is why a high level criminal or terrorist would ever possess a smart phone anyway. Angry birds? Hey let's thank god that these moros are not smart!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #4 March 7, 2012 QuoteRead a different story about this the other day and thought the same thing. However, it's a limited search right now. They can turn it on and maybe thumb through the history and directory, but doesn't give them the right to say, attempt to break through any and all security measures including the password lock to turn it on, if I read that part correctly. What I will never understand is why a high level criminal or terrorist would ever possess a smart phone anyway. They're essentially GPS tracking and bugging devices. They'd be far better off buying throw away phones with cash. I'm certainly not any sort of high level criminal or terrorist but I don't want them searching through my phone."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #5 March 7, 2012 QuoteI'm certainly not any sort of high level criminal or terrorist but I don't want them searching through my phone. Of course you don't. Hardly my point in that last paragraph.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #6 March 7, 2012 Do what I do fill your phone with porn porn and yes more porn! Extra points if it's fat chick porn! I knew this one guy who use to "move" "stuff" from RSA to the US all the time. And what he would do is put the stuff on the bottom of the container and place stinky socks and very rude porn on top. Made a good living at it for a while.Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #7 March 7, 2012 From what I read about this opinion (I haven't read the opinion and only caught a snippet a couple of days ago) it was decided that the cops could do things like get the phone number from the phone as an identification of the phone. From this identifier they could subpoena phone records and check out frequent calls, compare them to known dealer numbers, etc. and build a case. I don't like the decision myself but I don't view it as a huge extension of the right to warrantless search. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #8 March 8, 2012 Quote I'm certainly not any sort of high level criminal or terrorist. Of course you'd SAY that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #9 March 8, 2012 QuoteI don't view it as a huge extension of the right to warrantless search. I think it portends more ominously for the future than perhaps you do. Judicial philosophy will be a huge swing factor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 March 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteI don't view it as a huge extension of the right to warrantless search. I think it portends more ominously for the future than perhaps you do. Judicial philosophy will be a huge swing factor. I wasn't commenting on the ominous results, Andy. I'm personally very concerned with it. What I was commenting on was how much the 4th Amendment has already been eroded. This is yet another step. Not a huge leap. But another step. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #11 March 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't view it as a huge extension of the right to warrantless search. I think it portends more ominously for the future than perhaps you do. Judicial philosophy will be a huge swing factor. I wasn't commenting on the ominous results, Andy. I'm personally very concerned with it. What I was commenting on was how much the 4th Amendment has already been eroded. This is yet another step. Not a huge leap. But another step. Well, you have a right not to self incriminate, but the option of not providing fingerprints or DNA seems to have gone too. At least the 3rd Amendment seems to be intact, we should all be thankful for that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 March 9, 2012 QuoteWell, you have a right not to self incriminate, but the option of not providing fingerprints or DNA seems to have gone too. Right! So giving up your cell phone number when compared to other matters already lost just to me doesn't seem like much of a big step. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #13 March 9, 2012 QuoteQuoteWell, you have a right not to self incriminate, but the option of not providing fingerprints or DNA seems to have gone too. Right! So giving up your cell phone number when compared to other matters already lost just to me doesn't seem like much of a big step. Death of 1000 cuts for the Bill of Rights.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #14 March 9, 2012 Quote Well, you have a right not to self incriminate, but the option of not providing fingerprints or DNA seems to have gone too. At least the 3rd Amendment seems to be intact, we should all be thankful for that. At least they need a warrant for those, though."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #15 March 13, 2012 Quote Death of 1000 cuts for the Bill of Rights. Oh the irony of that comment from you..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #16 March 13, 2012 Quote Quote Death of 1000 cuts for the Bill of Rights. Oh the irony of that comment from you..... I'm not suggesting taking away any of your rights. You don't have a right not to be inconvenienced.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 March 14, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Death of 1000 cuts for the Bill of Rights. Oh the irony of that comment from you..... I'm not suggesting taking away any of your rights. You don't have a right not to be inconvenienced. Funny how you didn't have that view when it was your rocket motors being affected.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
