13 ms·
FBI cannot even look at your phone lock screen without a warrant, rules judge
- notadog 6y agoHere is the PDF of the ruling: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/gov.uscourts.wawd_.274574.73.0.pdf https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/gov.u...
- vmception 6y agoAlthough I'm favorable to this opinion, I don't treat anything in the 9th circuit as consensus anymore. Especially at federal district courts geographically within them. 2nd and 4th circuit rulings just have so much more weight in the direction of the country. 9th circuit just reminds you how irreconcilable 40% of the country's land mass is with the winning administration.
- chrisco255 6y agoWeird tangent. The ruling was not handed down from the 9th circuit. It was the Western District Court of Washington State. (https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/ https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/). 9th circuit is an appeals court.
- _bender_ 6y agoI don't agree with everything the commenter is saying but they are pointing out that the Western District Court of Washington is a federal district court under the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction, so for this new rule to have significant weight it would need to be affirmed by the 9th Circuit
- chrisco255 6y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that would mean it would need to be appealed? Why would the defendant appeal when the court ruled in their favor?
- abduhl 6y agoIt’s a motion to suppress not a final ruling and so the government can appeal the granting of the motion (either now or at a later stage if they do not win).
- _bender_ 6y agoYou're right, it would need to be appealed. The defendant would not appeal, but the government could, and likely will if it views this as a significant burden to police practice. An important thing to note is that federal district court decisions are not binding on other federal district courts (the decisions are persuasive authority, but do not force another judge's hands). Any other judge could decide not to follow this rule. Only if the rule is announced by the 9th circuit would district courts in the 9th circuit have to follow the rule. My main point is that while this is a promising decision, it is very far from the law of the land. And, as the original commenter pointed out, even if the 9th circuit upholds this ruling, the 9th circuit is only one circuit among many, and is often viewed as the most liberal circuit and not necessarily representative of the federal judiciary as a whole.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Non24Throw 6y agoEven if this decision is cited as case law in another case (i.e. somebody leverages the precedent) and a judgment is made, that judgment can be appealed arguing that the lower court was wrong in this instance, and then it would be up to the 9th Circuit to decide. After the 9th Circuit makes their decision, it could still be appealed to the Supreme Court (which I think is the country’s overall direction the root commenter was referring to). This kind of issue will come up very frequently in court because everyone has a phone, and it’s very easy for a lock screen to contain incriminating notifications. That kind of evidence is often decisive in court, which makes it an attractive/persuasive argument for appeals. Very likely this will end up in Supreme Court, which means decisions in lower courts are less consequential. The lower courts aren’t going to get to decide this one.
- chrisco255 6y agoWe need more rulings like this and then we need to grant Snowden clemency.
- qppo 6y agoSnowden's legal situation is up to him at this point. The only way for whistleblower precedent to be set is for him to stand trial.
- boolcow 6y agoIt's really up to us citizens that benefited from his whistleblowing to bail him out. But of course we don't because we're not as good a society as we might be.
- ta17711771 6y agoWant to start a foundation?
- ultrarunner 6y agoCould you elaborate? His revelations were that the government kinda does what it wants despite the law; what is it that is up to me (or any other individual) to right the wrongs of that same government?
- chrisco255 6y ago"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority." -Benjamin Franklin Protests and social pressure do work with the right amplitude.
- Mediterraneo10 6y agoThere is no evidence that Benjamin Franklin ever said that. Please do not perpetuate spurious quotations.
- mehrdadn 6y agoPrecedents are interesting: > Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 337 (2000) (concluding Border Patrol agent searched a bag by squeezing it) > Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324–25 (1987) (holding officer searched stereo equipment by moving it so that the officer could view concealed serial numbers). The idea seems to be that pushing the power button is what constituted a search, not taking a picture of the lock screen. Presumably if the lock screen was somehow already on at that point (which normally it wouldn't be) then it might be fair game to take a picture without a warrant.
- judge2020 6y agoI wonder how this works with "raise to wake" features modern phones have. If it goes to intent, it would be hard to prove that intent was to search the device.
- threatofrain 6y agoI also wonder if a different legal distinction will be drawn in the level of protection you might receive in fingerprint vs facial recognition auth.
- fiblye 6y agoI think that’d fall under inevitable discovery. Even avoiding trying to look at the phone would reveal its lock screen.
- SamReidHughes 6y agoSince simply moving a phone can turn on a lock screen, police could probably look at it that way, at the time of arrest.
- mehrdadn 6y ago> holding officer searched stereo equipment by moving it That seems pretty similar?
- 6y ago
- mrtweetyhack 6y agoIn China, you can't look at your own screen without government approval
- billme 6y ago(Duplicate) - prior comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269835
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- angel_j 6y agoBut those international chats? Yeah the whole DoD is gonna need to see those, no warrant required.
- broooder 6y agoWhy is the word “even” in the headline? What does that “even” mean?
- jackvalentine 6y agoIt's used to emphasize the limit that would be suprising to most people. "He can't even throw a ball one metre!"
- chiph 6y agoMeans that it's somewhat surprising. A regular person would likely consider looking at a lock screen to be no big deal. In this case however, the word "Skeezy" displayed on the lock screen was apparently a link that connected the owner to what was being investigated, and so material to the case.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoWhile it is related to common uses of the word "even", the construction would usually be thought of as "not even", a single unit in two words. Other languages express "even" and "not even" differently from each other.
- choward 6y agoI get your point but I'm guessing it's based on assumed context. The headline is implying they assume that everyone just assumes the FBI can do whatever they want to with your phone. But it turns out they can't even look at the unlock screen.
- mrfusion 6y agoBut they can get your browsing history without a warrant. What gives?
- billme 6y agoPrevious answer: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23270816 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23270816
- rmrfstar 6y agoAs with all questions constitutional law, it is not possible to make such a broad statement [1]. We are going to end up with some really weird law if we leave all of this up to the supreme court. At this point the dynamic is: congress gives the IC whatever it asks for, and sometimes the supreme court walks them back a little. We need to get congress to regulate this stuff... pronto. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court-warrants-cell-phone-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/politics/supreme-court...
- billme 6y ago>> “ We are going to end up with some really weird law if we leave all of this up to the supreme court.“ That’s a pretty bold claim, one which I am not aware of any examples of. High courts of any meaningful definition of such, regardless of country, if truly a legal court with fair rules, generally produce much clearly rules than those create by: general public, elected officials, professional governments employees, interest groups, private parties, etc. For example, take a few mins, even hours, try drafting what to you would be fair, clear, complete, stand the test of time, etc. — then post it somewhere online, post in to HN, and comment here you have. I’ll review it, post my review online.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- antpls 6y agoI understand from this link that they can look into cloud-uploaded browsing history without warrant, but not into the local history stored on the phone
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoWhat we’ee learning with General Flynn is that they don’t look at your locked screen at all. They simply ask one of their FVEY partners to look at everything, then pass it back. No warrant needed! They say there’s risk that FISA authorization might not get congressional renewal. Let’s all hope so.
- totalZero 6y agoOff-topic. General Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI in an in-person interview. Did you really just make an account to comment on HN about General Flynn? What's behind that??
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoI’m looking forward to learning so much more around the circumstances of General Flynn, in particular what the IC community (foreign and domestic) has been up to when they thought nobody was watching. Hopefully transparency doesn’t end, even if it means a trial!
- kevin_thibedeau 6y agoWhat about Border Patrol within the 100 mile perimeter zone? Do they still get a blank check to wipe their ass with the constitution?
- billme 6y agoThis ruling has no impact on the laws related to border searches.
- cmrdporcupine 6y agoEven more fun if you're a foreigner visiting and no constitutional protections apply to you in the first place. Haven't had my phone searched yet but the last two times I've crossed the border in the Niagara area for short ski trips I've had my car searched, been held for an hour, and a bunch of hostility directed my way. The fear that the next time around they'll force me to unlock my phone and waltz through my Facebook profile etc. means that even after the border closure and lockdown is lifted, I just won't be coming to your country and spending money there anymore.
- ddingus 6y agoFrom my reading, they could look, and if the phone display is on, fair game. The key judgement here appears to be whether some action, and or change in the state of the person and their property, made the information available. Entirely passive means still apply, however briefly.