OriginalShroom
Gold Member
- Jan 29, 2013
- 4,950
- 1,042
- 190
One thing I think most of us, if not all, can agree on is that the laws when it comes to technology are way behind.
When a Smart Phone is considered the same as a dumb phone under the law, there are some serious problems out there.
And here is another...
Personally I have my smartphone not only passworded, ( 9th CoA recently ruled that even a simple password is enough to require a warrant for inspection by police ) but I have all my files that I keep on there encrypted.
Not that I am doing anything illegal, but I do have stuff on my phone no one else should be able to see.
It is my own opinion that any Government Agency and / or agent should be required to have a warrant to inspect either my phone or my computer anywhere except when crossing the boarder and that should be limited to the size of the border crossing building itself, not the 150 miles (IIRC) that it is now.
The Smart Phones of today, not the dumb phones , are really more of a computer that has the capability of making a phone call than it is a phone that has other capabilities. When was the last time anyone phone ad extolled it's call making capabilities? Now it is about it's computing power. It's ability to multi-task. Even to take and share photos. But make a call and have a great sounding phone call? I haven't seen that ad in years, if I even did back then.
When a Smart Phone is considered the same as a dumb phone under the law, there are some serious problems out there.
And here is another...
Deadline Looms for Suspect to Decrypt Laptop, or Go Directly to Jail | Threat Level | Wired.com
If a judge orders you to decrypt the only existing copies of incriminating files, are your constitutional rights against compelled self-incrimination being violated?
Thats the provocative question being raised as a Wisconsin man faces a deadline today either to give up his encryption keys or risk indefinite imprisonment without a trial. The defendants attorney, Robin Shellow of Milwaukee, said its one of the most important constitutional issues of the wired era.
Shellow is making a novel argument that the federal magistrates decryption order is akin to forcing her client to build a case for the government. Thats because encryption basically transforms files into unreadable text, which is then rebuilt when the proper password is entered, she said.
Some encryption effects erasure of the encrypted data (so it ceases to exist), in which case decryption constitutes re-creation of the data, rather than simply unlocking still-existing data, Shellow wrote in a court filing. (.pdf)
In a telephone interview Monday, she said this area is a new way of thinking about encryption.
UPDATE: A federal judge this afternoon halted the decryption order, and demanded further briefing on the constitutional implications.
Personally I have my smartphone not only passworded, ( 9th CoA recently ruled that even a simple password is enough to require a warrant for inspection by police ) but I have all my files that I keep on there encrypted.
Not that I am doing anything illegal, but I do have stuff on my phone no one else should be able to see.
It is my own opinion that any Government Agency and / or agent should be required to have a warrant to inspect either my phone or my computer anywhere except when crossing the boarder and that should be limited to the size of the border crossing building itself, not the 150 miles (IIRC) that it is now.
The Smart Phones of today, not the dumb phones , are really more of a computer that has the capability of making a phone call than it is a phone that has other capabilities. When was the last time anyone phone ad extolled it's call making capabilities? Now it is about it's computing power. It's ability to multi-task. Even to take and share photos. But make a call and have a great sounding phone call? I haven't seen that ad in years, if I even did back then.