| Author |
Message |
    
Kenm123t
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2011 - 02:28 pm: | 
|
 Turn that Iphone tracking off!
There I fixed it for you! |
Thumper74
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2011 - 04:35 pm: |
|
They can remotely listen in on ANY cellphone remotely as long as there's a battery in it.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/06/12/02/0415209/FBI -Taps-Cell-Phone-Microphones-in-Mafia-Case
This was the first thing that came up.
Apparently, they can also see whatever is in view of the camera...
I don't own a Smart Phone and I plan on keeping it that way. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2011 - 06:52 pm: |
|
In God we Trust, in all others we MONITOR
everybody always talks about the Russian / Soviet 'fishing' trawlers that were elint, comint platforms..... nobody admits we have a sizable flotilla of similiarly equipped 'research' vessels that do the exact same thing, and have for over 4o years. google Auxilary Navy Ships.....
"All the science, I dont understand, it was just my job, 70 hours a week" |
Phelan
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2011 - 07:18 pm: |
|
Mine is jailbroken and there is a tweak to automatically erase location data stored. Considering I'm never anywhere but home, work, and the gym, I can't see a reason to delete it. Doing so could make me look more like a criminal than leaving it there. |
86129squids
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2011 - 01:34 am: |
|
I want a new sticker:
"Smart Phones >= Dumb People"
I had the idea of removing the battery also... |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2011 - 11:14 am: |
|
Froggy, I didn't think the IPhone does native encryption (unlike the BB), but I have dug deep into it. That's kind of why I asked the question.... |
Paint_shaker
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2011 - 12:48 pm: |
|
"Learned that back in college. If this statement is inaccurate, then the next time you are detained tell the police you want to step away to have a smoke and make some calls. Won't happen!"
Being detained and being placed under arrest are not the same. Different rules and actions officers may take apply in each situation.
As for the Ca ruling, it only applies after a lawful arrest has been made. Not sure about Ca, but in Florida a majority of traffic laws are considered civil infractions. Therefore a traffic stop would be a lawful detention (not considered an arrest), from which the violator is not free to go.
IF the driver is stopped for a criminal violation or if after being pulled over for an infraction an officer develops probable cause to make an arrest, then an arrest situation exists.
(Message edited by Paint shaker on April 23, 2011) |
Eboos
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2011 - 02:43 pm: |
|
Forgive me, but my book on constitutional law is a little out dated, but here is a passage that seems relevent:
"... In contrast, the 1969 decision in Chimel v. California represented a move to narrow the area subject to a warrantless search and , consequently, to induce greater use of search warrants.
Under Chimel, police making a lawful arrest may search the person and the area within the arrestee's control or reach. The basis of the exception to the warrant requirement is thus the safety of the police and the protection of evidence."
-A. T. Mason, American Constitutional Law. 1999
The scope is safety, and securing evidence, now you would still need probable cause to believe that you will find evidence, of the crime the arrestee is in custody for, in the cellphone data. The fact that a person is arrested does not give permission to search their phone for whatever they may find. |
Froggy
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2011 - 02:47 pm: |
|
Reepi I'm not aware if it can or not, my Windows and Android phones have it, but knowing Apple they probably won't allow it. |
Paint_shaker
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2011 - 01:09 pm: |
|
Eboos,
This case narrowed the scope of search incident to arrest;
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. ___ (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured. |
Ferris_von_bueller
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2011 - 01:21 pm: |
|
I find it amusing that some people actually believe authority figures (i.e. politicians, the police) follow the rules and laws that govern the rest of us.
You can cite all the laws and court cases you want. You can jump up and down and stomp your feet it won't change a thing. The Police, in my general area, routinely disregard the Constitution as a matter of policy because they can. The people they abuse are generally poor and not familiar with their rights nor able to obtain legal council. Oh yea, not to mention, they will beat your ass if you resist.
(Message edited by Ferris_von_bueller on April 24, 2011) |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2011 - 01:56 pm: |
|
did you move to Seattle recently !?
yep. Alot of SOP flies in the face of the Constitution, and alot of it is laser directed in its application ie child porn, drugs, money laundering, tax evasion, and coming very soon - medical fraud.
And the methods and tactics do have an ameboa affect on the force, because they produce results, you will see the practices adopted by main force 'protection' units. |
Reducati
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2011 - 01:59 pm: |
|
yea..you said it...they should be all chasing murders, instead of giving me a ticket for what i didnt do  ...jesus..grow up! |
Ohsoslow
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2011 - 03:29 pm: |
|
http://walker.wzzm13.com/news/news/police-use-phon e-scanner-raises-questions/56093?odyssey=mod|newsw ell|text|FRONTPAGE|p
here is an interview with a Michigan state cop about the device.
(Message edited by ohsoslow on April 24, 2011) |
Eboos
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2011 - 08:12 pm: |
|
"The people they abuse are generally poor and not familiar with their rights nor able to obtain legal council."
see Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
If you like, I can cite plenty of cases where evidence was thrown out because it was collected improperly.
(Message edited by eboos on April 24, 2011) |
Eboos
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2011 - 08:19 pm: |
|
Thank you Paint Shaker. That was a more current case that seems to completely agree with Chimel v. California. |
Paint_shaker
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2011 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Eboos,
Arizona vs Grant was because some officer decided to push the "search incident to arrest rules".
Ferris Von,
Bad apples exist everywhere. An example;
"I find it amusing that some people actually believe them rice burners follow the rules and laws that govern the rest of us."
I see you are in Maryland. I grew up in Montgomery Co. Sounds like you are in PG County? |
Sayitaintso
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2011 - 01:29 pm: |
|
I see you are in Maryland. I grew up in Montgomery Co. Sounds like you are in PG County?
Ouch.....
I spent more than a few years of my childhood in Montgomery County and my brother (who I visit often) lives in Annapolis.
I avoid PG like the plague, same goes for Baltimore Co. |
Eboos
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2011 - 02:10 pm: |
|
"Eboos,
Arizona vs Grant was because some officer decided to push the "search incident to arrest rules"."
Right, and I am agreeing with you. Chimel's conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court because the evidence of the burglary of a coin shop was obtained after a warrentless search of his house after his arrest. Both the California Court of Appeals and the CA Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
It was a 7-2 majority. |
|
