A slippery slope indeed
Apr 19, 2011 | 6:43 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 647
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.'
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.'
Apr 19, 2011 | 7:13 pm
#3
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 464
Apr 19, 2011 | 7:20 pm
#4
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 120
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 ...
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 ...
Apr 19, 2011 | 9:09 pm
#5
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,817
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.
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.
Apr 20, 2011 | 12:14 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,681
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.'
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.'
Apr 20, 2011 | 12:29 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still PAL Premier Elite & Hilton Diamond
Posts: 25,429
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.
Sounds like a great way for TSA to waste more of our money. 
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?
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.
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?
Apr 20, 2011 | 12:34 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: MSP
Programs: Fallen Plats, ex-WN CP, DYKWIW; still PAL Premier Elite & Hilton Diamond
Posts: 25,429
Duplicate thread, I should have realized that "A Slippery Slope Indeed" was probably about this. Great minds think alike.
Apr 20, 2011 | 5:41 am
#9
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 471
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.
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.
Apr 20, 2011 | 6:23 am
#10
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 5,817
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.
Apr 20, 2011 | 6:28 am
#11
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 569
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.
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.
Apr 20, 2011 | 8:45 am
#12
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: AA Gold (former Platinum), SPG Gold, SWA, UA, National Car, TSA Disparager Silver
Posts: 119
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.
Apr 20, 2011 | 8:53 am
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 30,990
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.
Apr 20, 2011 | 10:21 am
#15
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
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.