FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Practical Travel Safety and Security Issues (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues-686/)
-   -   A slippery slope indeed (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/practical-travel-safety-security-issues/1207369-slippery-slope-indeed.html)

bluenotesro Apr 19, 2011 6:43 pm

A slippery slope indeed
 
Better hope TSA doesn't get hold of this, if they haven't already.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp

'The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.'

Mister Dystopia™ Apr 19, 2011 6:51 pm

How does a minor traffic stop equal having your cell phones records taken? What happened to the country that I love? I just have a hard time jumping from a traffic ticket to having your phone searched.

oldjonesy Apr 19, 2011 7:13 pm


Originally Posted by Mister Dystopia™ (Post 16247705)
How does a minor traffic stop equal having your cell phones records taken? What happened to the country that I love? I just have a hard time jumping from a traffic ticket to having your phone searched.

"I do not consent to having my phone searched"

Popperian Apr 19, 2011 7:20 pm

Just so all of you know, they can already upload software remotely to your phone and even record ambient nearby conversations when the phone is powered off.

There have been court cases showing that the FBI was doing this in some mob investigations, that's how it became public.

The -only- way your cellphone is not compromised is if you remove the battery.

So this "extract info from the phones" thing is sort of a joke honestly ...

SWCPHX Apr 19, 2011 9:09 pm

The California Supreme Court in January (shocking if you ask me) already ruled that at least in California, the search of a cellular phone incident to arrest did not require a warrant. According to the majority opinion, they fall under the closed container rule that allows an officer to further search a closed container of an in custody person.

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/01/cou...t-warrant.html

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375237,00.asp

Don't worry, you're cell phone is still safe in Ohio.

Ari Apr 20, 2011 12:14 am


Originally Posted by bluenotesro (Post 16247677)
Better hope TSA doesn't get hold of this, if they haven't already.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp

'The Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.'

The ACLU has been fighting this battle for a while. I think their letter was not quite right-- they should have sued a long time ago.

MikeMpls Apr 20, 2011 12:29 am

Hang on to your phones!
 
Think twice about letting that TSO examine your phone. If they don't have these yet, they'll surely have them soon:
Downloads/steals the entire PDA contents in 1.5 minutes.


Originally Posted by Cellebrite
Designed for portability, the Cellebrite UFED solution is a stand-alone device that can be used either in the field or at the lab. The most complete mobile forensics experience, Cellebrite's UFED is in use at military, law enforcement, and government agencies across the world.

Sounds like a great way for TSA to waste more of our money. :D

Now TSA might not actually have these (yet), but would you like to be that this is exactly what CBP uses when they walk off with your phone?

MikeMpls Apr 20, 2011 12:34 am

Duplicate thread, I should have realized that "A Slippery Slope Indeed" was probably about this. Great minds think alike. :D

VelvetJones Apr 20, 2011 5:41 am


Originally Posted by SWCPHX (Post 16248289)
The California Supreme Court in January (shocking if you ask me) already ruled that at least in California, the search of a cellular phone incident to arrest did not require a warrant. According to the majority opinion, they fall under the closed container rule that allows an officer to further search a closed container of an in custody person.

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/01/cou...t-warrant.html

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2375237,00.asp

Don't worry, you're cell phone is still safe in Ohio.

Technically this isn't the same thing. The California ruling involved people already arrested. In the Michigan case they were scanning phones of people pulled over for simple traffic stops. Wrong in both cases, but Michigan was taking a big leap on this one. Like the TSA, they've apparently given up on even pretending to act in a constitutional manner.

SWCPHX Apr 20, 2011 6:23 am


Originally Posted by VelvetJones (Post 16249613)
Technically this isn't the same thing. The California ruling involved people already arrested. In the Michigan case they were scanning phones of people pulled over for simple traffic stops. Wrong in both cases, but Michigan was taking a big leap on this one. Like the TSA, they've apparently given up on even pretending to act in a constitutional manner.

The folks they pulled over in MI should've known that they had the right to say no to a search of their cell phone or their vehicle. I don't feel sorry at all for somebody stupid enough to get caught like this. As for the folks in CA, well don't do something that is likely to get you arrested, problem solved.

Darkumbra Apr 20, 2011 6:28 am

I wonder if copyright laws could provide a nice little poison pill to protect us against this?

These devices 'copy' information from our phones. What if we deliberately add a text message or note file containing information AND a indication that we have copyrighted that info.

When they copy our stuff without our permission, and handing them a phone for examination for explosives does not give permission for them to search for digital info(?)... Do we then have recourse under copyright laws?

Just an idle thought.

lkkinetic Apr 20, 2011 8:45 am

Since these law enforcement violations of privacy via the mobile phone accelerated a few months ago, I've put a pattern lock on my phone. As an aside, as I understand it, if the phone is in your pocket while driving it's easier for the police to argue that they have the right to search it, while if it's in a bag it's more difficult. Putting a pattern lock on it makes it much easier for me to enforce my rights.

Boggie Dog Apr 20, 2011 8:53 am


Originally Posted by lkkinetic (Post 16250503)
Since these law enforcement violations of privacy via the mobile phone accelerated a few months ago, I've put a pattern lock on my phone. As an aside, as I understand it, if the phone is in your pocket while driving it's easier for the police to argue that they have the right to search it, while if it's in a bag it's more difficult. Putting a pattern lock on it makes it much easier for me to enforce my rights.

What is a pattern lock?

eturowski Apr 20, 2011 9:40 am


Originally Posted by Boggie Dog (Post 16250548)
What is a pattern lock?

Like a password, but you have to touch the buttons in a certain order.


RichardKenner Apr 20, 2011 10:21 am


Originally Posted by Darkumbra (Post 16249774)
These devices 'copy' information from our phones. What if we deliberately add a text message or note file containing information AND a indication that we have copyrighted that info.

You don't need a copyright notice: they have very little legal significance. Any text message you write is already copyrighted. I have no idea how copyright law interacts with law enforcement searches, though.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 1:09 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.