EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
This could hae greater implications than catching a drug dealer.
only in liberal cali
- Thread starter EddieS'04
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Frank screwyourednecks
Well-Known Member
Six out of seven members of the Supreme Court of California were appointed by Republicans Eddie.
Facts have a liberal bias Ed. Try them sometime!
Facts have a liberal bias Ed. Try them sometime!
EddieS'04
In Memoriam 1950-2022
Frank I wasnt relating to any any political party. Im relating to future implications of privacy. FYI, if you havent read some of my other post. I lean centrist conservative. Never pulled a straight ticket.
Jim Luttrell
Member
Funny thing about Cali.
If you go to Cali, and then went all the way right; you'd still be left of just about the entire country!
If you go to Cali, and then went all the way right; you'd still be left of just about the entire country!
Roger Batts
Well-Known Member
I heard about this a few days ago. They can only read your texts without a warrant if the phone is unlocked. If you have a password on the phone, they have to get a warrant to make you unlock it so they can read whatever you have on it.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Disregarding any liberal/conservative politicizing...
I find this one interesting from the perspective that the contents of the phone can change over time. If the courts were to say that you need to get a warrant first, I would think that, in theory, an associate of the phone's owner who knew that the phone had fallen into police hands could send a "kill" command and purge or disable the phone. If the phone's contents are to be used either to try to get a conviction or to further an investigation, immediacy of some sort is necessary.
I find this one interesting from the perspective that the contents of the phone can change over time. If the courts were to say that you need to get a warrant first, I would think that, in theory, an associate of the phone's owner who knew that the phone had fallen into police hands could send a "kill" command and purge or disable the phone. If the phone's contents are to be used either to try to get a conviction or to further an investigation, immediacy of some sort is necessary.
![[Ford Explorer & Mazda Navajo (91-01), Mercury Mountaineer (97-01), Explorer Sport (00-03), & Explorer Sport Trac (01-05) Haynes Repair Manual] [By: John H. Haynes] [November, 2005]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51rNKiwBPpL._SL500_.jpg)
Bill Koonce
Active Member
Leave it to a GOP spin doctor to blame innocent people for the agenda of their own political party. :smack:
It's been decades since a very right-wing U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people have no expectation of privacy while out in public, and that "probable cause" could be used as a catch-all excuse for illegal search and seizure. It's been nearly a decade since the Bush administration installed eavesdropping equipment so massive that every single phone call, e-mail and text is seen by the government. The ability has been around for a long time. New abuses are inevitable.
The big question here is whether "fishing trip" searches can be used to bring new charges against a defendant. If the cop downloads an unsolicited spam mail from China, clicks the link and downloads what appears to be child pornography, can the defendant be charged for sex crimes?
Oh, BTW...CA SB 1386 and Parts of the California Constitution make personal privacy an inalienable right. In other words, you seem to have picked the worst possible state to scapegoat in this matter.
It's been decades since a very right-wing U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people have no expectation of privacy while out in public, and that "probable cause" could be used as a catch-all excuse for illegal search and seizure. It's been nearly a decade since the Bush administration installed eavesdropping equipment so massive that every single phone call, e-mail and text is seen by the government. The ability has been around for a long time. New abuses are inevitable.
The big question here is whether "fishing trip" searches can be used to bring new charges against a defendant. If the cop downloads an unsolicited spam mail from China, clicks the link and downloads what appears to be child pornography, can the defendant be charged for sex crimes?
Oh, BTW...CA SB 1386 and Parts of the California Constitution make personal privacy an inalienable right. In other words, you seem to have picked the worst possible state to scapegoat in this matter.
