Warrantless cell phone snooping ruled unconstitutional by a Texan judge
posted by Daniel P. / Nov 18, 2011, 6:01 AM
Now the latest development is that a US District Court Judge in Texas has ruled it "unconstitutional" to try and intersect or gain access to things like contacts, times of calls and so on, from someone's mobile phone without a warrant.
This is all considered private data by the US Constitution, and should be protected from obtaining it willy-nilly from everyone with a whiff of a suspect, was written in the one-pager with which the judge provided the argumentation.
A fairly archaic law from 1986 is governing cell phone and email records, and the world of technology has moved significantly from then. It allows government agencies to freely roam through your phone records without a warrant now, but a lot of industry titans, like Microsoft and Google, are lobbying for changing that, and the courts are evidently nudging this issue in the right direction as well.
Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008
thank god. i was starting to give up hope that the constitution even existed anymore.
posted on Nov 18, 2011, 6:41 AM 2
Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010
@remixfa - don't give up hope, the U.S. Constitution may yet get sundered. There is still the appellate path to the Supremes. At best, there is a 50-50 chance the District Court't decision gets upheld by the Supremes.
posted on Nov 18, 2011, 7:12 AM 0
Posts: 16; Member since: Aug 19, 2011
im kind of on the fence with this issue yes people want privacy and it is important to them i understand that but again o the other hand the only people who will be using those laws will be the people who have something to hide im not a lawer but i would think people convicted of a felony should be exempt form this law but thats my opinion
posted on Nov 18, 2011, 7:25 AM 0
Posts: 45; Member since: Nov 03, 2011
While most people do have something to hide (and there is nothing wrong with that), people are innocent until proven guilty. All that the judges that put this down are saying is, if LE wants to look into somebody's private life, they should at least be doing the work of obtaining a warrant first. Otherwise, just look at red light cameras in IL and how many accidents they've caused. As soon as thet took the need for policework out and replaced them with a blanket technology it took away all aspects of driver safety and replaced it with a virtual ATM for municipalities. While cameras are not cell phones, the same concept translates here.
posted on Nov 18, 2011, 8:38 AM 2
Posts: 448; Member since: Jul 15, 2011
It's not about having anything to hide but it's about whether most of that is any of their damn business or not. I'm a very open person with friends and family, but I don't go showing my business to anyone that asks. If someone asks you how often you have sex with your significant other and if you get kinky, do you answer or tell them it's none of their business? If you answer the latter, by your argument, there must be something to hide and it's worth investigating. You should read Daniel Solove's essay titled "'I've Got Nothing to Hide' and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy". It's a great read. If there's a reason to probe into someone's life, then the cops can ask a judge to review the request and get a warrant. We have this thing called the 4th amendment. The government needs to respect that.
posted on Nov 18, 2011, 9:36 AM 0
Posts: 438; Member since: Feb 19, 2010
Any judge, lawyer or congressman that is in favour of sniffing through cellphones must remember, that that would include their cellphones. And nine of them are above suspicion. Close the doors now protect us from privacy invasion. Protect yourself as well.
posted on Nov 18, 2011, 8:12 AM 1
Send a warning to post author
Send a warning to Selected user.
The user has 0 warnings currently.
Next warning will result in ban!
Ban user and delete all posts
Message to PhoneArena moderator (optional):