since9
Campaign Veteran
Well, not exactly, but they certainly left it in tatters. The California Supreme Court did rule that since it's on your person, a cell phone is subject to search and seizure by law enforcement without a warrant.
I would have argued that most cell phones only store the PIN and a unique number on the card in the phone, and that all text messages, numbers, etc. are stored OFF one's person in the databases of the phone company. Just because information is accessible via a device on one's person doesn't mean the information itself is on one's person.
By their arguement, however, if I carried a laptop in California, 100% of everyone I'd done online would be open to their review, whether it was MSN, Yahoo, GMail, or some e-mail service in Germany?
NOT! :banghead:
I really hope this one is overturned by a Federal Appeals court, and FAST. As the article says:
"Rasch, former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, pulled no punches in his reaction to the ruling. "This ruling isn't just wrong, it's dangerous," said Rasch, now director of cybersecurity and privacy at computer security firm CSC in Virginia. "It's remarkable, because it simply misunderstands the nature of these devices."
Bingo. Expect to hear more of this.
In the meantime, I strongly recommend you password encrypt your phones, and if you have a laptop and the capability of encrypting your files, such as with Microsoft's BitLocker (available in Vista and Windows 7 Ultimate versions), do so.
I would have argued that most cell phones only store the PIN and a unique number on the card in the phone, and that all text messages, numbers, etc. are stored OFF one's person in the databases of the phone company. Just because information is accessible via a device on one's person doesn't mean the information itself is on one's person.
By their arguement, however, if I carried a laptop in California, 100% of everyone I'd done online would be open to their review, whether it was MSN, Yahoo, GMail, or some e-mail service in Germany?
NOT! :banghead:
I really hope this one is overturned by a Federal Appeals court, and FAST. As the article says:
"Rasch, former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, pulled no punches in his reaction to the ruling. "This ruling isn't just wrong, it's dangerous," said Rasch, now director of cybersecurity and privacy at computer security firm CSC in Virginia. "It's remarkable, because it simply misunderstands the nature of these devices."
Bingo. Expect to hear more of this.
In the meantime, I strongly recommend you password encrypt your phones, and if you have a laptop and the capability of encrypting your files, such as with Microsoft's BitLocker (available in Vista and Windows 7 Ultimate versions), do so.
Last edited: