12/17/2023 0 Comments Privacy issues caption phone![]() Both are ways of getting from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them together. That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon. "The United States asserts that a search of all data stored on a cell phone is 'materially indistinguishable' from searches of these sorts of physical items. The case's majority opinion produced this now iconic statement from Justice Antonin Scalia, which was referenced repeatedly in the congressional hearing on the Apple-FBI dispute: This case held that to take an item in plain view, the police need to have probable cause. The order provided that the Company be fully reimbursed at prevailing rates, and compliance with it required minimal effort on the part of the Company and no disruption to its operations." Moreover, it can hardly be contended that the Company, a highly regulated public utility with a duty to serve the public, had a substantial interest in not providing assistance. For the Company, with this knowledge, to refuse to supply the meager assistance required by the FBI in its efforts to put an end to this venture threatened obstruction of an investigation which would determine whether the Company's facilities were being lawfully used. A United States District Court found that there was probable cause to believe that the Company's facilities were being employed to facilitate a criminal enterprise on a continuing basis. "We do not think that the Company was a third party so far removed from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled. Justice Potter Stewart wrote in the court opinion: The court revisited the question of where and when people should have a reasonable expectation of privacy, saying that FBI agents could not attach a recording device to a telephone booth. But in his dissent, Associate Justice Louis Brandeis outlined an argument that the court would face again: "The evil incident to invasion of the privacy of the telephone is far greater than that involved in tampering with the mails."īy now, the telephone was making its way into daily life, so expectations were different. Why? In part, because the listening equipment was installed outside the houses involved. Below are some of the key cases in which the top court has been asked to evaluate similar concerns.īack before the telephone was ubiquitous and pocket-size, the court ruled that wiretapped phone conversations were not a violation of the defendant's rights under the Fourth or Fifth Amendments. It's unclear when or if the legal dispute over the San Bernardino iPhone will reach the Supreme Court, but the court's past opinions are informative as the Apple-FBI legal clash continues. ![]() And I think that same exact dynamic is happening here." "So a case that considered warrantless wiretapping looks a lot different. "The justices had phones, and they knew that they talked about their most private stuff on those phones," says Jennifer Stisa Granick, director of civil liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |