Letters to the Editor
-
iPhone emphasis
I can only think of two reasons why Farhad Manjoo names the iPhone specifically in this post:
1. The term iPhone is quickly becoming a psuedo-generic term like Kleenix, Xerox, or Jell-o, a brand name that is so pervasive that people are starting to call all cellphones and PDAs an iPhone.
2. Mr. Manjoo has not reached his weekly quota for mentioning Apple products this week.
-
Re: iPhone emphasis
JT, here's another reason why I might have mentioned the iPhone: The paper I'm referring to is called "The iPhone Meets the Fourth Amendment." While the professor notes that his theory applies to all phones with similar capabilities -- as do I; note my phrase that way in the first sentence -- he focuses on the Apple device because it's the most popular.
The word iPhone appears in the paper about 108 times. If you'd like to read one of the instances, or all, you can click on the link I provided near the end of my article. You can do so from a Mac or a PC.
-
Sorry for not emphasising my sarcasm
Farhad - I did browse the article. As the IT person for a firm in DC that deals with telecommunication issues, as well as a former worker in the software division of a major cell phone manufacturer, this caught my interest.
Gershowitz did repeatedly refer to the iPhone, and that was probably a mistake on his part. I suspect it's because it's such a recognizable name of a typical device. It especially helps that Apple named it "iPhone", not a "iPhone 952g" like some other manufacturers would have. On page 2, he notes that an iPhone, "...is a handheld wireless device that functions as a cell phone, blackberry, camera, music player, and video player, while simultaneously providing internet access." In this he confounds the iPhone with RIM's Blackberry device. Also by repeatedly mentioning just the iPhone, he gives a false sense of security to users of other devices, including other cell phones, PDAs (Windows Mobile, Palm, RIM, or otherwise), palm top computers, and laptops (especially those with onboard cellular modems).
This could extend even further than just SmartPhone. Say I have a navigation system in my car. Is searching that for past destinations or any cached location information admissible as evidence when gathered in relation to an unrelated arrest? If Dan Defendant is arrested for reckless endangerment, and his onboard navigation system shows a known crack house as a previous destination, could he also be brought up on drug charges even if there was no other reason for suspecting him of drug use?
I admit Gershowitz makes a good point about the Fourth Amendment and how it applies to devices in this digital age. It illustrates one of the many ways that the technology is advancing much faster than the law can keep up. He just needs to broaden his terminology so that people don't browse the article and think, "I don't have an iPhone so I don't have to worry about this." But he is treating the name "iPhone" as a generic name for cellular-based all-in-one mobile devices, which was my first suggestion on why he (and you, commenting on his paper) focused on the iPhone so much. As popular as it is, it has not quite reached that level of popularity.
By the way, I enjoy the blog, which is part of my daily reading. I'll try to make any sarcastic comments I have more obvious in the future.
-
@Ilya
I'm pretty sure that the police cannot perform a search of your vehicle on a routine traffic stop. The police can order you out of the car and pat you down without probable cause (for their safety), but they still have to have probable cause to, say, search the contents of your trunk.
-
Encryption won't work
There is a case before the courts right now about this issue. The accused had a laptop that border agents suspected had child porn on it. Problem was it was encrypted. The accused refused to supply his password. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011503663.html
And enough with the freaking iPhones Farhad. I am sick unto death with the freaking iPhone. Obviously these cases refer to data storage devices. Someone could have a USB drive, a portable hd or any number of other toys.
-
*sporfle*
Yet another reason not to get enslaved to these cute little gewgaws. I'll wait 'til I get home to surf the internet, thanks.
-
Or you could just delete the files, that's what they do at Langley
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011504090.html?sub=AR
"In late 2005, the retiring CIA station chief in Bangkok sent a classified cable to his superiors in Langley asking if he could destroy videotapes recorded at a secret CIA prison in Thailand that in part portrayed intelligence officers using simulated drowning to extract information from suspected al-Qaeda members..."
Every device in the world should come with a "wipe" key, and it should work. Why don't they?
It worked with the White House emails!
-
@ nulla
So Nulla, what were you on probation for?
-
Why can't you just use the Fifth Amendment, disallowing an intrusive, unreasonably personal search that would incriminate you?
I read an article (maybe in the WSJ? I forget) about taking a laptop through airport security, thereby giving security the right to search the entire contents of the laptop. This isn't even an "incident of arrest" scenario, but was considered something that airport security could legally do.
I suppose it would wreak havoc on your travel plans, and likely land you in a cell next to some Icelandic woman who'd overstayed her visa 10 years ago, but why couldn't you plead the Fifth?
Be a test case. Be the next Roe or Brown or whatever.
Anyway, why not the Fifth? I'm asking.
Oh, and Scalia's right. *hurl* But he is, on this one.