4th amendment

What Makes The iPhone Location Logging Story So Bad?

Following up on my previous post about iOS 4 powered devices logging your every move, I just noticed this story from Time:

The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has accused the MSP of using devices to extract information from the cellphones of drivers they've pulled over without the owner's knowledge, thereby violating Fourth Amendment rights. Mark Fancher, an ACLU attorney told reporters that cellphones "can contain information that many people consider to be private, to be beyond the reach of law enforcement and other government actors... There is great potential for abuse here by a police officer or state trooper who may not be monitored or supervised on the street."

These devices, the Cellbrite UFED, have been in use since before 2008. It doesn’t matter if you password protect your phone or not – it will retrieve the data in about 30 seconds. What 4th amendment?

The police aren’t the only ones you have to worry about either. Curious spouses, private investigators or anyone at all. The data is stored in your phone in very unsecure manner. Got a stalker? Great – just let him grab your phone in a bar. Now he’ll know everywhere you have been and can figure out a pattern.

All we can hopeful now is that some one in Congress will take notice and do the right thing. Steve Jobs needs subpoenaed and forced to answer about this egregious invasion of privacy. If he refuses to answer there, then it’s time for the DOJ to take action. This isn’t an issue of right or left, but rather right or wrong.

Politics

If Government Can’t Limit The 2nd Amendment, What About The 4th?

Today the Supreme Court ruled that states can’t impose laws hindering the gun rights:

The Supreme Court held Monday that the Constitution's Second Amendment restrains government's ability to significantly limit "the right to keep and bear arms," advancing a recent trend by the John Roberts-led bench to embrace gun rights.

By a narrow, 5-4 vote, the justices also signaled, however, that some limitations on the right could survive legal challenges.

Writing for the court in a case involving restrictive laws in Chicago and one of its suburbs, Justice Samuel Alito said that the Second Amendment right "applies equally to the federal government and the states."

Now thinking about this, it seems that the law was put in to protect the citizens. So wouldn’t the same now apply to the 4th amendment? What about warrantless wiretapping of phones? The argument Bush and the Republicans used was that it’s legal because they are doing so to “keep the people safe”. Well it seems like a stronger argument could now be made against that, citing this ruling.

Or could it?

Monday's decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

Still, Alito noted that the declaration that the Second Amendment is fully binding on states and cities "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values."

That’s some pretty narrow language there. I think if one wanted to apply this to the 4th amendment and the Bush wiretapping, then it could be said that what Alito wrote wouldn’t apply.

Politics

Lieberman/Collins Bill Would Let The Government Take Over Your Network

Leave it to Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins to figure out ways to let the government extend their reach even more:

Lieberman and Collins’ solution is one of the more far-reaching proposals. In the Senators’ draft bill, “the President may issue a declaration of an imminent cyber threat to covered critical infrastructure.” Once such a declaration is made, the director of a DHS National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications is supposed to “develop and coordinate emergency measures or actions necessary to preserve the reliable operation, and mitigate or remediate the consequences of the potential disruption, of covered critical infrastructure.”

“The owner or operator of covered critical infrastructure shall comply with any emergency measure or action developed by the Director,” the bill adds.

These emergency measures are supposed to remain in place for no more than 30 days. But they can be extended indefinitely, a month at a time.

So we continue to ignore the 4th amendment. Forget the fact that these networks are private property and this would constitute a government seizure of that property without a court issued warrant. That pesky Constitution stuff doesn't matter to the likes of Lieberman and Collins.

Adding...with the history of our government losing private data, how much would we trust them "securing" private networks? I sure wouldn't.

A Media Orgy With The Right

I heard of being in bed with the right but the latest piece by Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift makes it sound like one hell of an orgy going on:

Republicans finally had something to celebrate this week when Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold called for censuring George W. Bush. Democrats must have a death wish. Just when the momentum was going against the president, Feingold pops up to toss the GOP a life raft.

It’s brilliant strategy for him, a dark horse presidential candidate carving out a niche to the left of Hillary Clinton. The junior senator from New York is under attack for being too soft on Bush and the war, and most of the non-Hillarys are to her right. There is a vacuum in the heart of the party’s base that Feingold fills, but at what cost? His censure proposal looks like a stunt, “the equivalent of calling for a filibuster from Davos,” says Marshall Wittmann, a senior fellow with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. To win in ’06, he says, “Democrats need to take the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.”

OK stop right there. A life raft? I would call it anything but a life raft. Actually a recent PEW Research poll shows that the country is pretty much split on the issue. 46% support it while 44% oppose it. What is even more shocking from that poll is the fact that only 57% of Republicans are opposed to the censure resolution.

Will The Democrats Stop Their Pandering To The Right?

This entire debacle that has started by a very legitimate resolution offered by Russ Feingold has just got me fuming. His motion to censure Bush is by far one of the most reasonable requests that have been made in the 109th Congress. Rather you are for or against the wiretapping program, one thing remains - it shows the people Congress is acting.

Democrats are yelling and screaming about the censure resolution. Actually they are trying to play both sides of the fence. On one side is the "we oppose what Bush is doing and want more investigations" and on the other side is the "we believe Russ Feingold is out of touch with the people".

Here's something for these Democrats to consider. 34%. That is the approval rating of George Bush. Congress had no problem with censuring Clinton and he was at 60% at the time. Something else to consider is the fact that a majority of Americans oppose warrantless tapping. The only way they support it is if it's used against terrorists. Of course what proof do we have that it is being used against terrorists? A court ordered warrant is the guarantee of proof we are missing from that equation. That is the reason we have a 4th amendment. The constitution also says that the President and Congress swear to uphold it, not ignore whatever parts of it they want.

Please Save Our Great Nation

Why is it that the Senate Intelligence Committee is holding their hearings in
secret, behind close doors, debating the changes to make to the Patriot Act? Do
they feel that the terrorists might keep up on it and get a heads up on what
could come out of it? Nah..I don't think so. In fact it is my opinion that they
are being so secretive on the changes to the Patriot Act because they know if
Americans found out the plans they have for it, it could cause an up rise of
pissed of patriots in the United States.

Ok we are out fighting in Iraq trying to spread democracy and freedom.
Soldiers are dying for this cause. Citizens are dying for this cause. This
campaign is costing this country billions and destroying our image around the
world. But in a secret room in the Capitol, some of our very own elected
officials, the people we put in power to represent us are trying to shred our
right even further by giving the FBI greater power over subpoenas without
judicial oversight.

The first Patriot Act has already come under heavy fire from groups such as
the ACLU. It is coined as being a reduction of rights in America. Even in
Michael Moore's award winning documentary Fahrenheit 911 he talks about a group
in California being infiltrated by law enforcement and considered a threat
because of their actions. Actions like sitting around, supporting Democratic
candidates and eating pies. These are horrible terrorists in deed.

What Makes The iPhone Location Logging Story So Bad?

If Government Can’t Limit The 2nd Amendment, What About The 4th?

Lieberman/Collins Bill Would Let The Government Take Over Your Network

A Media Orgy With The Right

Will The Democrats Stop Their Pandering To The Right?

Please Save Our Great Nation

Pages

Comments

Tip Jar

Monthly archive

Tags

Follow Me On Twitter

You are here