0
3

[–] Oxirix 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Finally a reasonable decision to come out of scotus. I hope they can keep this ball rolling and not just end at searching the phone in person, but also protect the privacy of phone's data being sent to and from.

0
2

[–] smuttneyspears 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I think that hopefully the tides are turning for America and its privacy concerns...either that or the NSA has found a way to backdoor/trojan every piece of equipment it wants, and all while doing so 'within the law'.

0
1

[–] NinjaKlaus 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This sounds great on paper but we'll just see them continue to use the Stingray devices that they are desperate to keep you from knowing more about to the point they tell locals to lie about their use. Maybe that can be the next case.

0
0

[–] originalucifer 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

are those legal? i would suspect they are perfectly legal in the same way police are allowed to blatantly lie to you, which is why no one should ever trust a police officer.

0
1

[–] pben95 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's a nice sign that the SCotUS is recognizing the constitution, but I doubt this'll change anything.

"Generally such searches are permitted if there is "probable cause" that a crime has been committed, to ensure officers' safety and prevent destruction of evidence."

Probable cause is very iffy, it's the officers word against a suspected criminal, and if incriminating evidence is actually found, regardless of "probable cause" it makes it iffier.

0
1

[–] ToastyFlake 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I think that quote was talking about "wallets, briefcases, and vehicles -- all currently subject to limited initial examination by law enforcement." The ruling was saying cell phones don't fall in this category.

0
0

[–] Portugal 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

6/27/2014

/v/news add_core POR