Mich. Cops can now steal your cell phone data

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm skeptical as well. I can see a cop wanting the data of a drug dealer he may have just arrested, but I don't see what they would want with the phone of a speeding soccer mom. It doesn't make sense.

If it doesn't make sense, then it probably isn't true.

 

[Douger]

Hopefully the ones from the religion of peace will invent a "new kind " of cell phone to hand to them.

 

[asterism]

I'm skeptical as well. I can see a cop wanting the data of a drug dealer he may have just arrested, but I don't see what they would want with the phone of a speeding soccer mom. It doesn't make sense.

Fishing for evidence of texting while driving.

 

[Ravi]

This is also pretty creepy, apparently your iphone or ipad or ibook is tracking you where ever it goes...so if it is one the cops talk you into giving over...

iSpy Conspiracy: Your iPhone Is Secretly Tracking Everywhere You've Been | TPM Idea Lab

 

[westwall]

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

Personally I despise the ACLU, IMO they have caused far more harm then they've fixed, but this is pretty damned outrageous.

such as?

These are just a very few of the silly positions they have taken over the years.




: "Active in lawsuits, legislatures, the media and academia, the ACLU certainly is working to 'defend rights.' The inconsistency of its record, however, raises the question of just whose liberties they are working to preserve. An examination of the ACLU's involvement in and comments about individual rights reveals that it may not be working to defend 'every person in this country.' Becoming a 'card-carrying member of the ACLU' may make you a member of the world's largest organization for hypocrites.

...Although the ACLU lobbies Congress and state legislatures, its accomplishments derive chiefly from judges who share the ACLU's view of the Constitution as a 'living document'-more accurately described as the 'Gumby' version. Only a constitution that can be stretched, twisted and tied in knots could support most of the causes advocated by the ACLU."

The American Civil Liberties Union may be definitely classed as a Communist front or 'transmission belt' organization. At least 90% of its efforts are expended on behalf of Communists who come into conflict with the law. While it professes to stand for free speech, a free press, and free assembly, it is quite obvious that its main function is to protect Communists in their activities of force and violence in their program to overthrow the government."


-- Report of the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities


Home :: content
ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private
By littlered - Posted on January 16th, 2008
Tagged: NewsHuh?American Civil Liberties UnionConvictionLarry CraigLegalQuotationTechnology
Buzz I saw this article on my homepage, and was amazed. i usually don't support anything the ACLU stands for, but this one is just CRAZY!

ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private

ST. PAUL, Minn. - In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.
ADVERTISEMENT

Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.

The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.

The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal.

"The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief.

The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.

Craig at one point said he would resign but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private | SwampBubbles - News, Politics, Reports

 

[Quantum Windbag]

go aclu is all i have to say

Oh no - the ACLU is EVIL, doncha know? Unless, of course, it is attempting to keep OUR ox from being gored . . .

I don't think the ACLU is evil. I often think they should choose their cases differently, but that does not make them evil.

 

[ogibillm]

Personally I despise the ACLU, IMO they have caused far more harm then they've fixed, but this is pretty damned outrageous.

such as?

These are just a very few of the silly positions they have taken over the years.




: "Active in lawsuits, legislatures, the media and academia, the ACLU certainly is working to 'defend rights.' The inconsistency of its record, however, raises the question of just whose liberties they are working to preserve. An examination of the ACLU's involvement in and comments about individual rights reveals that it may not be working to defend 'every person in this country.' Becoming a 'card-carrying member of the ACLU' may make you a member of the world's largest organization for hypocrites.

...Although the ACLU lobbies Congress and state legislatures, its accomplishments derive chiefly from judges who share the ACLU's view of the Constitution as a 'living document'-more accurately described as the 'Gumby' version. Only a constitution that can be stretched, twisted and tied in knots could support most of the causes advocated by the ACLU."

The American Civil Liberties Union may be definitely classed as a Communist front or 'transmission belt' organization. At least 90% of its efforts are expended on behalf of Communists who come into conflict with the law. While it professes to stand for free speech, a free press, and free assembly, it is quite obvious that its main function is to protect Communists in their activities of force and violence in their program to overthrow the government."


-- Report of the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities


Home :: content
ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private
By littlered - Posted on January 16th, 2008
Tagged: NewsHuh?American Civil Liberties UnionConvictionLarry CraigLegalQuotationTechnology
Buzz I saw this article on my homepage, and was amazed. i usually don't support anything the ACLU stands for, but this one is just CRAZY!

ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private

ST. PAUL, Minn. - In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.
ADVERTISEMENT

Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.

The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.

The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal.

"The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief.

The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.

Craig at one point said he would resign but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private | SwampBubbles - News, Politics, Reports

i won't go so far as to say that soliciting sex in a bathroom stall - or having sex in a bathroom stall - should be legal, but i don't think arguing that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall is in any way harmful.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How can the police compel you to give them your cell phone during a traffic stop to begin with?

They can't. If a cop asks you to give him your cell phone ask him what law says you have to hand it over. You have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy when it comes to your cell phone. If the cops wanna' look at it, they need a warrant just the same as if they wanted to come into your house.
I understand people have a respect for Law Enforcement but when the cops break the law they deserve no respect.

I don't like the ACLU either but in this case they're right.

Your reasonable expectation of privacy does not always apply to your phone. If the police arrest you in California they can treat your phone just like your wallet and search it. Anyone with a smart phone needs to make sure it is password protected, has a good firewall, and that it locks if not in use.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny how they ignore the Brown shirts of the TSA thou...

TSA searches are legally deemed "administrative searches" and have passed 4th amendment muster.

Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.

TSA: Frequently Asked Questions - Program

They have not. No challenge to the new procedures has yet worked its way through the system to the point where an actual ruling has been made. Thanks for posting the propaganda though.

By the way, the ruling about administrative searches does not apply to drug screenings at airports. Can you tell me why the TSA suddenly thinks they have the authority to do that? Is it actually possible that you are wrong?

 

[spectrumc01]

I'm skeptical as well. I can see a cop wanting the data of a drug dealer he may have just arrested, but I don't see what they would want with the phone of a speeding soccer mom. It doesn't make sense.

If it doesn't make sense, then it probably isn't true.

You would have to live in Michigan to believe it. This happens all the time. You have the right to refuse to give him the cell phone, you also have the right to sit on the side of the road for hours while they search your vehicle. Probable cause is too easy, "I smelled dope", there you go. They then will write you every ticket they can think of, to include measuring the distance between your bumper from the ground. Anything hanging from your rearview mirror is obstruction of vision. The cops in Michigan are crooked and in some places worse than the mob. We have a saying where I live, "Come here on vacation, leave on probation." I've heard it said, in Flint, that the cops sell the best drugs. Where I live, it is horrible. The double standard is unbelievable. We have cops giving the police chief rides home after crashing his car while drinking. Last year we had two die, one not wearing his seatbelt, and the other drinking and driving on the way to physical thearapy. We are currently, taxpayers, paying a lawsuit that involved our state police, and prosecuter framing a murder suspect. In the southern part of our state they are fighting the prosecuter over illegal confiscation of property and then auctioning it off. This does not suprise me in the least.

 

[Gadawg73]

How can the police compel you to give them your cell phone during a traffic stop to begin with?

They can't. If a cop asks you to give him your cell phone ask him what law says you have to hand it over. You have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy when it comes to your cell phone. If the cops wanna' look at it, they need a warrant just the same as if they wanted to come into your house.
I understand people have a respect for Law Enforcement but when the cops break the law they deserve no respect.

I don't like the ACLU either but in this case they're right.

Your reasonable expectation of privacy does not always apply to your phone. If the police arrest you in California they can treat your phone just like your wallet and search it. Anyone with a smart phone needs to make sure it is password protected, has a good firewall, and that it locks if not in use.

The Cellebrite software, which I deal with weekly in my detctive business, goes right through password, firewall and locks.
That is the software all of the cell companies use when they set up your phone, troubleshoot it and change to another phone when they empty all the contacts etc.
The expectation of privacy is the argument they always use but it is a bogus argument to defenders of liberty. These are not arrests so that theory doesn't apply.

 

[whitehall]

Homeland Security has apparently been using the devices since at least 2008. No objection from libs as long as a liberal is in the white house.

 

[Valerie]

Funny how they ignore the Brown shirts of the TSA thou...

TSA searches are legally deemed "administrative searches" and have passed 4th amendment muster.

Even prior to the passage of ATSA and the Federalization of the screening work force, Federal courts upheld warrantless searches of carry-on luggage at airports. Courts characterize the routine administrative search conducted at a security checkpoint as a warrantless search, subject to the reasonableness requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Such a warrantless search, also known as an administrative search, is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is "no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives, confined in good faith to that purpose," and passengers may avoid the search by electing not to fly. [See United States v. Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)].

While the searches at the airport will be conducted by private screening companies, such searches will continue to be subject to the Fourth Amendment requirements of reasonableness because they are conducted at the instigation of the federal Government and under the authority of federal statutes and regulations governing air passenger screening.

TSA: Frequently Asked Questions - Program

They have not. No challenge to the new procedures has yet worked its way through the system to the point where an actual ruling has been made. Thanks for posting the propaganda though.

By the way, the ruling about administrative searches does not apply to drug screenings at airports. Can you tell me why the TSA suddenly thinks they have the authority to do that? Is it actually possible that you are wrong?

Wrong about what ?

 

[Valerie]

I'm skeptical as well. I can see a cop wanting the data of a drug dealer he may have just arrested, but I don't see what they would want with the phone of a speeding soccer mom. It doesn't make sense.

If it doesn't make sense, then it probably isn't true.

No, it's true...

ACLU Seeks Records about State Police Searches of Cellphones
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 13, 2011



DETROIT – The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan urged the Michigan State Police (MSP) today to release information regarding the use of portable devices which can be used to secretly extract personal information from cell phones during routine stops.

For nearly three years, the ACLU has repeatedly asked for this information through dozens of Freedom of Information Act requests, but to date it has not been provided.

ACLU Seeks Records about State Police Searches of Cellphones | ACLU of Michigan | Because Freedom Can

 

[Valerie]

CNet.com reports the Michigan State Police (MSP) are using “extraction devices” to download personal information from motorists’ cell phones, including contacts, videos, GPS data, and pictures, “even if they’re not suspected of any crime.”

“The handheld machines have various interfaces to work with different models and can even bypass security passwords and access some information,” CNet says. The MSP have admitted to owning five of the devices.

The ACLU isn’t happy. In a press release last week, the group continued its mission to have the MSP hand over records indicating how the information is being used. For three years, the release says, the MSP has been giving the ACLU the run around. In fact, it’s now come to the point where the MSP is demanding over $500,000 in processing fees to fork over the data.

“We should not have to go on expensive fishing expeditions in order to discover whether police are violating the rights of residents they have resolved to protect and serve,” the release said.

“Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags,” a brochure from device manufacturer Cellebrite says about the tool’s capabilities.

Mich. Cops Can Now Steal Your Cell Phone Data — ‘Without the Owner Knowing’ | The Blaze

 

[The Infidel]

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

Personally I despise the ACLU, IMO they have caused far more harm then they've fixed, but this is pretty damned outrageous.

such as?

Start your own thread.... The ACLU sux balls, but every once in a while, they get it right.

 

[The Infidel]

such as?

These are just a very few of the silly positions they have taken over the years.




: "Active in lawsuits, legislatures, the media and academia, the ACLU certainly is working to 'defend rights.' The inconsistency of its record, however, raises the question of just whose liberties they are working to preserve. An examination of the ACLU's involvement in and comments about individual rights reveals that it may not be working to defend 'every person in this country.' Becoming a 'card-carrying member of the ACLU' may make you a member of the world's largest organization for hypocrites.

...Although the ACLU lobbies Congress and state legislatures, its accomplishments derive chiefly from judges who share the ACLU's view of the Constitution as a 'living document'-more accurately described as the 'Gumby' version. Only a constitution that can be stretched, twisted and tied in knots could support most of the causes advocated by the ACLU."

The American Civil Liberties Union may be definitely classed as a Communist front or 'transmission belt' organization. At least 90% of its efforts are expended on behalf of Communists who come into conflict with the law. While it professes to stand for free speech, a free press, and free assembly, it is quite obvious that its main function is to protect Communists in their activities of force and violence in their program to overthrow the government."


-- Report of the California Senate Fact-Finding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities


Home :: content
ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private
By littlered - Posted on January 16th, 2008
Tagged: NewsHuh?American Civil Liberties UnionConvictionLarry CraigLegalQuotationTechnology
Buzz I saw this article on my homepage, and was amazed. i usually don't support anything the ACLU stands for, but this one is just CRAZY!

ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private

ST. PAUL, Minn. - In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy.
ADVERTISEMENT

Craig, of Idaho, is asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to let him withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct stemming from a bathroom sex sting at the Minneapolis airport.

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote.

The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.

The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal.

"The government cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Senator Craig was inviting the undercover officer to engage in anything other than sexual intimacy that would not have called attention to itself in a closed stall in the public restroom," the ACLU wrote in its brief.

The ACLU also noted that Craig was originally charged with interference with privacy, which it said was an admission by the state that people in the bathroom stall expect privacy.

Craig at one point said he would resign but now says he will finish his term, which ends in January 2009.

ACLU: Sex in restroom stalls is private | SwampBubbles - News, Politics, Reports

i won't go so far as to say that soliciting sex in a bathroom stall - or having sex in a bathroom stall - should be legal, but i don't think arguing that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a bathroom stall is in any way harmful.

See.... I knew it.

 

[Gadawg73]

Homeland Security has apparently been using the devices since at least 2008. No objection from libs as long as a liberal is in the white house.

What a bogus argument.
Not every issue is "lib versus con".
Expecially one like this one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They can't. If a cop asks you to give him your cell phone ask him what law says you have to hand it over. You have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy when it comes to your cell phone. If the cops wanna' look at it, they need a warrant just the same as if they wanted to come into your house.
I understand people have a respect for Law Enforcement but when the cops break the law they deserve no respect.

I don't like the ACLU either but in this case they're right.

Your reasonable expectation of privacy does not always apply to your phone. If the police arrest you in California they can treat your phone just like your wallet and search it. Anyone with a smart phone needs to make sure it is password protected, has a good firewall, and that it locks if not in use.

The Cellebrite software, which I deal with weekly in my detctive business, goes right through password, firewall and locks.
That is the software all of the cell companies use when they set up your phone, troubleshoot it and change to another phone when they empty all the contacts etc.
The expectation of privacy is the argument they always use but it is a bogus argument to defenders of liberty. These are not arrests so that theory doesn't apply.

Any software that exist can be blocked. It might not be available yet, but let police start doing this and not only will there be programs available that block the software, there will be malware floating around that totally wipes the devices police use.

 

[uscitizen]

I did not read about wireless devices any where in the constitution.

Of course activist/revisionist intrepretations....