I'm slowly losing my distaste for mass surveillance.
From Marxist to Hitlerist to extreme libertarian to Orwellian statismMan, you'll have just about everything covered by then end of next year, won't you?
Quote from: DAS B00TINATOR on December 11, 2014, 03:49:10 PMFrom Marxist to Hitlerist to extreme libertarian to Orwellian statismMan, you'll have just about everything covered by then end of next year, won't you?Whoa, whoa, whoa. Since when was I an "extreme" libertarian?
SpoilerI should clarify that by "losing my distaste" I mean I'm bored of the issue. I don't necessarily support it.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on December 11, 2014, 03:50:27 PMQuote from: DAS B00TINATOR on December 11, 2014, 03:49:10 PMFrom Marxist to Hitlerist to extreme libertarian to Orwellian statismMan, you'll have just about everything covered by then end of next year, won't you?Whoa, whoa, whoa. Since when was I an "extreme" libertarian?Didn't you enjoy Atlas Shrugged?
"If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide"
Quote from: Mad Max on December 11, 2014, 03:29:05 PM"If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide"That would imply there is only good or bad. There are certain things that are not good or bad, but people still feel the need to hide. Being a closeted gay person for example. Being gay isn't bad but when a video of you taking it up the ass shows up and people make fun of you, it can be degrading and shameful. In private, people can truly be themselves without being in constant fear for going against the grain and being a nonconformist. It's not anyone's business but one's own. I can gurantee you enjoy some privacy. Bet you lock the bathroom stall door when you poop in public. Where do you live? You shouldn't mind unless you got something to hide.
Quote from: Sly Instinct on December 11, 2014, 04:19:58 PMQuote from: Mad Max on December 11, 2014, 03:29:05 PM"If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide"That would imply there is only good or bad. There are certain things that are not good or bad, but people still feel the need to hide. Being a closeted gay person for example. Being gay isn't bad but when a video of you taking it up the ass shows up and people make fun of you, it can be degrading and shameful. In private, people can truly be themselves without being in constant fear for going against the grain and being a nonconformist. It's not anyone's business but one's own. I can gurantee you enjoy some privacy. Bet you lock the bathroom stall door when you poop in public. Where do you live? You shouldn't mind unless you got something to hide.Thanks for illustrating my point.
Quote from: Mad Max on December 11, 2014, 03:29:05 PM"If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide"That's a petty excuseIf I'm not doing nothing wrong then I shouldn't be treated like a criminal nor should I have my rights violated. That's the same talk used by extremist governments such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia
Quote from: Mad Max on December 11, 2014, 03:29:05 PM"If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide"That's a petty excuseIf I'm not doing nothing wrong then I shouldn't be treated like a criminal nor should I have my rights violated. That's the same talk used by extremist governments such as Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia And what if the government all of a sudden decides what you're doing IS bad?YouTube
From the decision itself:[53] I pause here for a moment to note that some courts have suggested that the protection s. 8 affords to individuals in the context of cell phone searches varies depending on whether an individual’s phone is password-protected: I would not give this factor very much weight in assessing either an individual’s subjective expectation of privacy or whether that expectation is reasonable. An individual’s decision not to password protect his or her cell phone does not indicate any sort of abandonment of the significant privacy interests one generally will have in the contents of the phoneEdit: removed lower court decision.
So as the story goes two guys rob a jewelry store with guns. They load all of the jewelry into their trunk and drive off. So they are caught later by police who are out looking for jewelry thieves. The police officer looks at the suspects phone and notices that there is a picture of a hand gun and a text message proclaiming that they've stolen the jewelry.So they use this information to get a warrant and they find the hand gun is in the impounded car. The two are brought up for charges of theft with a gun.Now here's the question, do these two thieves get to get away with it? There is more than sufficient evidence for them to be convicted. However the starting point for that evidence was from a cell phone that clearly shows guilt.The supreme court argued that yes, they should go to jail as searching a suspect for evidence is part of regular police work and that limiting it would also limit their ability to find evidence.In this case searching the cell phone has to be limited to specifically what the officer is looking for. If for example he found a picture of this guy sitting next to a kilo of weed, he would be set free.
http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0JP23Z20141211?irpc=932QuoteTORONTO (Reuters) - Canada's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that police may search a suspect's cellphone without a warrant under specific conditions that safeguard the broader constitutional right to privacy.The 4-3 decision mirrored the deep divisions of lower courts in both Canada and the United States as they try to balance privacy rights in a digital age with law enforcement's need to protect evidence.The Ottawa-based court said that limited searches were lawful in some circumstances. These include that the arrest itself is lawful; the search is deemed necessary to locate and preserve evidence or catch other suspects, protect the police, the suspect or the public; and police take detailed notes on how they examine the device."To summarize, police officers will not be justified in searching a cell phone or similar device incidental to every arrest," Judge Thomas Cromwell wrote on behalf of the majority."The weighty privacy interest that an arrested person has in a personal digital device will outweigh the state interest in performing a warrantless search incident to arrest, except in exigent circumstances," the majority opinion said.In practice, this will mean only recently sent or drafted emails, texts, photos and the call log will typically be available, the court said.The court's dissenting voices said the decision would result in a breach of privacy and tend to "bring the administration of justice into disrepute."They noted that other personal devices such as tablets, smart watches, laptop computers and smart glasses would likely be subject to the same treatment."Unwarranted searches undermine the public's confidence that personal communications, ideas and beliefs will be protected on their digital devices," they wrote.The decision was seen by some as a step back for privacy rights, which Canadian and U.S. courts have upheld in most recent cases."I have to say I'm surprised given the court's very strong recent privacy record ... I'm surprised that a divided court came out permitting some warrantless searches of cell phones," University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist said."The somewhat complicated conditions that the majority wants to set up aren't really a substitute for a warrant, which offers up a much clearer, more practical approach to providing privacy protection," he added.In the specific case argued by the court, Kevin Fearon was arrested after an armed robbery. His phone, which was not password protected, was searched and found to contain a picture of the handgun used in the robbery and a draft text message that said "We did it".
TORONTO (Reuters) - Canada's Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that police may search a suspect's cellphone without a warrant under specific conditions that safeguard the broader constitutional right to privacy.The 4-3 decision mirrored the deep divisions of lower courts in both Canada and the United States as they try to balance privacy rights in a digital age with law enforcement's need to protect evidence.The Ottawa-based court said that limited searches were lawful in some circumstances. These include that the arrest itself is lawful; the search is deemed necessary to locate and preserve evidence or catch other suspects, protect the police, the suspect or the public; and police take detailed notes on how they examine the device."To summarize, police officers will not be justified in searching a cell phone or similar device incidental to every arrest," Judge Thomas Cromwell wrote on behalf of the majority."The weighty privacy interest that an arrested person has in a personal digital device will outweigh the state interest in performing a warrantless search incident to arrest, except in exigent circumstances," the majority opinion said.In practice, this will mean only recently sent or drafted emails, texts, photos and the call log will typically be available, the court said.The court's dissenting voices said the decision would result in a breach of privacy and tend to "bring the administration of justice into disrepute."They noted that other personal devices such as tablets, smart watches, laptop computers and smart glasses would likely be subject to the same treatment."Unwarranted searches undermine the public's confidence that personal communications, ideas and beliefs will be protected on their digital devices," they wrote.The decision was seen by some as a step back for privacy rights, which Canadian and U.S. courts have upheld in most recent cases."I have to say I'm surprised given the court's very strong recent privacy record ... I'm surprised that a divided court came out permitting some warrantless searches of cell phones," University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist said."The somewhat complicated conditions that the majority wants to set up aren't really a substitute for a warrant, which offers up a much clearer, more practical approach to providing privacy protection," he added.In the specific case argued by the court, Kevin Fearon was arrested after an armed robbery. His phone, which was not password protected, was searched and found to contain a picture of the handgun used in the robbery and a draft text message that said "We did it".
Proposition: give the citizens the technological ability to spy on the government. Make it a two way street. Let's see how they like it.
Quote from: Mad Max on December 11, 2014, 04:49:43 PMProposition: give the citizens the technological ability to spy on the government. Make it a two way street. Let's see how they like it.Something about giving the population potential access to highly-sensitive information doesn't strike me as responsible.
Canada allows warrantless cell phone searches.
