3 ms·

I was impressed with the discussion of the implication of device access when all your data is in the cloud. For more detailed discussion of the cotterman case

by dfc 14y ago

I was impressed with the discussion of the implication of device access when all your data is in the cloud. For more detailed discussion of the cotterman case see professor kerr's most recent post: http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/08/en-banc-ninth-circuit-holds-that-computer-forensic-searches-are-like-virtual-strip-searches-and-require-reasonable-suspicion-at-the-border/ http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/08/en-banc-ninth-circuit-holds... And his earlier posts: http://www.volokh.com/2011/03/30/ninth-circuit-decides-cotterman-case-reversing-district-court-on-laptop-seizure-at-the-border/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/03/30/ninth-circuit-decides-cotte... http://www.volokh.com/2011/01/17/update-on-united-states-v-cotterman-ninth-circuit-case-applying-the-border-search-exception-to-computers/ http://www.volokh.com/2011/01/17/update-on-united-states-v-c... http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/02/ninth-circuit-en-banc-argument-in-united-states-v-cotterman/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/02/ninth-circuit-en-banc-argum...

jmomo 14y ago
We currently live in a world where most of those in power are old people who don't know wtf teh internets is, nevermind have any conceptual grasp of the changes that drones, nanotech, human modification and augmentation, and similar will cause in our society. I am shocked, like I think you are, that these judges would have even the slightest clue. This is just uncharacteristic for the kinds of rulings we usually see when anything technology is related. I expect that near the end of my lifetime, when people my age are in power, if not sooner, a large number of laws and rulings will be overturned and changed in radically legal-altering ways. But it has always been that way. Even within my lifetime, we no longer think that ulcers are caused by stress, mobile phones/computers became reality, and a non-white person was elected present of my country. These are all pretty radical things.
- smsm42 14y ago
  >>>> We currently live in a world where most of those in power are old people who don't know wtf teh internets No we do not. A person who is now 60 (reasonable estimate age for "old people in power" - Obama is 52, John Roberts is 58, Boehner is 64) has lived in the internet age for almost 20 years, since he was 40. If you assume people can't learn something that is happening before their eyes for 20 years while they are at the peak of their career - you must have ver low and counterfactual opinion about these "old people". It may have been true 15 years ago, but repeating it now, in 2013, makes one sound a bit out of date. Virtually all "old people" now know what the internet is, and have been for years. Proverbial "your mother" now knows how to use the computer and follows you on Facebook. The times where internet was for hip youngsters has long passed, deal with it.
  - dfc 14y ago
    The supremes are not known for being tech savvy. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/19/our-tech-savvy-supreme-court/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/19/our-tech-savvy-supreme-c...
    - smsm42 14y ago
      The claim in the article that "kids and grandkids" could answer how text messaging system works "while sleepwalking" is ridiculous. I am sure more than 50% of HN visitors do not know in details how mobile telephony and SMS works in details, and probably about 99% of the "kids" do not. They know it send the message somewhere and then it arrives, but how exactly it does it? What exactly receives it? How it knows where to send it? What exactly happens if the recipient is unavailable? Where exactly the message is stored and for how long? etc., etc. Assuming the judge does not know about existence of the mobile service providers is outright ridiculous - even idiot would notice building-size ads on every second road advertising mobile services, or ads on the TV and in the newspapers. And SC judges are not idiots. I think more plausible is that Ashby Jones just didn't understand what it was about. It was about if the message or information about it is stored on provider's systems - which is quite reasonable question, some systems are peer-to-peer, some use dedicated server, they wanted to know which is it because it is highly relevant for the case, which discusses if it is legal for the employer to check on communications of an employee, and if it is then to what extent. The pager/email matter even more laughable - clearly the question was if the legal implications for pager are different than for email (for which the law is known) and if so, what exactly makes them different. To understand this as if Roberts couldn't figure out what is the difference between email and pager at all is plain silly. Supreme court judges have to deal with pretty much every aspect of modern life, thanks to over-invasive state. So I am more than ready to forgive them if they ask questions about technology that most people know how to use, but have very vague idea about how it actually works in detail. Unlike their kids sleepwalking, they can not afford to have vague idea - they have to know exactly what they are judging about, and thanks God they are asking questions - I'd be much more concerned if they relied on vague idea in a matter they are not professionals in.
  - nitrogen 14y ago

by dfc 14y ago

jmomo 14y ago

We currently live in a world where most of those in power are old people who don't know wtf teh internets is, nevermind have any conceptual grasp of the changes that drones, nanotech, human modification and augmentation, and similar will cause in our society. I am shocked, like I think you are, that these judges would have even the slightest clue. This is just uncharacteristic for the kinds of rulings we usually see when anything technology is related. I expect that near the end of my lifetime, when people my age are in power, if not sooner, a large number of laws and rulings will be overturned and changed in radically legal-altering ways. But it has always been that way. Even within my lifetime, we no longer think that ulcers are caused by stress, mobile phones/computers became reality, and a non-white person was elected present of my country. These are all pretty radical things.

smsm42 14y ago
>>>> We currently live in a world where most of those in power are old people who don't know wtf teh internets No we do not. A person who is now 60 (reasonable estimate age for "old people in power" - Obama is 52, John Roberts is 58, Boehner is 64) has lived in the internet age for almost 20 years, since he was 40. If you assume people can't learn something that is happening before their eyes for 20 years while they are at the peak of their career - you must have ver low and counterfactual opinion about these "old people". It may have been true 15 years ago, but repeating it now, in 2013, makes one sound a bit out of date. Virtually all "old people" now know what the internet is, and have been for years. Proverbial "your mother" now knows how to use the computer and follows you on Facebook. The times where internet was for hip youngsters has long passed, deal with it.
- dfc 14y ago
  The supremes are not known for being tech savvy. http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/19/our-tech-savvy-supreme-court/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/04/19/our-tech-savvy-supreme-c...
  - smsm42 14y ago
    The claim in the article that "kids and grandkids" could answer how text messaging system works "while sleepwalking" is ridiculous. I am sure more than 50% of HN visitors do not know in details how mobile telephony and SMS works in details, and probably about 99% of the "kids" do not. They know it send the message somewhere and then it arrives, but how exactly it does it? What exactly receives it? How it knows where to send it? What exactly happens if the recipient is unavailable? Where exactly the message is stored and for how long? etc., etc. Assuming the judge does not know about existence of the mobile service providers is outright ridiculous - even idiot would notice building-size ads on every second road advertising mobile services, or ads on the TV and in the newspapers. And SC judges are not idiots. I think more plausible is that Ashby Jones just didn't understand what it was about. It was about if the message or information about it is stored on provider's systems - which is quite reasonable question, some systems are peer-to-peer, some use dedicated server, they wanted to know which is it because it is highly relevant for the case, which discusses if it is legal for the employer to check on communications of an employee, and if it is then to what extent. The pager/email matter even more laughable - clearly the question was if the legal implications for pager are different than for email (for which the law is known) and if so, what exactly makes them different. To understand this as if Roberts couldn't figure out what is the difference between email and pager at all is plain silly. Supreme court judges have to deal with pretty much every aspect of modern life, thanks to over-invasive state. So I am more than ready to forgive them if they ask questions about technology that most people know how to use, but have very vague idea about how it actually works in detail. Unlike their kids sleepwalking, they can not afford to have vague idea - they have to know exactly what they are judging about, and thanks God they are asking questions - I'd be much more concerned if they relied on vague idea in a matter they are not professionals in.
- nitrogen 14y ago