4 ms·

The loss of Aereo sucks, but this is a much heavier positive ruling. I wonder if this extends to the NSA's warrantless collection and to what extent.

by gr3yh47 12y ago

PaulHoule 12y ago
Now we need a peer to peer network to watch broadcast TV...
- gr3yh47 12y ago
  I'm sure that will happen in the near future
endersshadow 12y ago
This portion of the ruling would be interesting to see used: "We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime...Privacy comes at a cost." Roberts looked squarely into the "police efficiency" argument and shot it dead. This was a remarkably scathing opinion of law enforcement's methods w/r/t cell phones. I wonder if we'll see this used as part of the broader challenge to the NSA. The EFF was just gifted an incredible opinion to strengthen their case(s).
- ihsw 12y ago
  Not really. Simply put, LE agencies have always been happy to directly and unambiguously state that combating crime trumps privacy, and now they will do so without hesitation. It was only a matter of time until the issue of privacy was addressed, and now that it has come to pass then the issue will cause polarization in politics. Whether this is good or bad is up to you.
- drawkbox 12y ago
  It is refreshing to see balance in security/privacy even being mentioned. Sometimes the system actually works, it may take the Supreme Court 15 years to get to it but it actually works. "Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions..." Mobile phones and computers are an extension of our brains now and peering into that is more invasive than papers and possessions of the past as they track metadata and behavior that people don't explicitely want to be recorded.
eugenez 12y ago
The ruling is not so much about whether they can search a phone without a warrant, but whether the resulting evidence is admissible in court for criminal cases. This will not impact NSA's collection since they have not been using it in court.
- malandrew 12y ago
  Unfortunately, we still need to address parallel construction which allows the fruits of NSA collection to make its way into domestic law enforcement activities and eventually court cases by indirect means. Parallel construction seems like it should be ruled unconstitutional since you have the right to confront your accuser in court (confrontation clause of the sixth amendment). Out of curiosity, does anyone here know the current state of legal challenges that aim to stop the practice of parallel construction?

The loss of Aereo sucks, but this is a much heavier positive ruling. I wonder if this extends to the NSA's warrantless collection and to what extent.

by gr3yh47 12y ago

The loss of Aereo sucks, but this is a much heavier positive ruling. I wonder if this extends to the NSA's warrantless collection and to what extent.

PaulHoule 12y ago

Now we need a peer to peer network to watch broadcast TV...

gr3yh47 12y ago
I'm sure that will happen in the near future

endersshadow 12y ago

This portion of the ruling would be interesting to see used: "We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime...Privacy comes at a cost." Roberts looked squarely into the "police efficiency" argument and shot it dead. This was a remarkably scathing opinion of law enforcement's methods w/r/t cell phones. I wonder if we'll see this used as part of the broader challenge to the NSA. The EFF was just gifted an incredible opinion to strengthen their case(s).

ihsw 12y ago
Not really. Simply put, LE agencies have always been happy to directly and unambiguously state that combating crime trumps privacy, and now they will do so without hesitation. It was only a matter of time until the issue of privacy was addressed, and now that it has come to pass then the issue will cause polarization in politics. Whether this is good or bad is up to you.
drawkbox 12y ago
It is refreshing to see balance in security/privacy even being mentioned. Sometimes the system actually works, it may take the Supreme Court 15 years to get to it but it actually works. "Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions..." Mobile phones and computers are an extension of our brains now and peering into that is more invasive than papers and possessions of the past as they track metadata and behavior that people don't explicitely want to be recorded.

eugenez 12y ago

The ruling is not so much about whether they can search a phone without a warrant, but whether the resulting evidence is admissible in court for criminal cases. This will not impact NSA's collection since they have not been using it in court.

malandrew 12y ago
Unfortunately, we still need to address parallel construction which allows the fruits of NSA collection to make its way into domestic law enforcement activities and eventually court cases by indirect means. Parallel construction seems like it should be ruled unconstitutional since you have the right to confront your accuser in court (confrontation clause of the sixth amendment). Out of curiosity, does anyone here know the current state of legal challenges that aim to stop the practice of parallel construction?