Supreme Court cellphone ruling an important victory against unreasonable searches by government

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    June 28, 2014 12:27 p.m.

    @2 bits

    The don't need your phone to access phone records and SMS (texting) records. All of that is recorded by the phone provider anyhow. Even if the phone is destroyed those record are still available, with a warrant of course. So they have no reason to hold your phone if you're not in custody.

    Ultra Bob:
    [The people who fear the government intrusion but turn a blind eye on the intrusion of private interests are most likely criminals wishing to avoid the law.]

    And it is absolutely their civil right to do so. That's the entire point of the Bill of Rights, to put the burden on the government; not the citizen.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2014 7:26 p.m.

    The wording of the 4th Amendment is of little comfort to ordinary people. Words like "unreasonable" and "probable cause" removes the protection from people who can't afford the cost of litigation and allows the rich and powerful to buy favorable treatment by the law.

    The people who fear the government intrusion but turn a blind eye on the intrusion of private interests are most likely criminals wishing to avoid the law.

    Further there is little difference between telephone information and computers and our e-mails, our shopping habits, books we read, media that we subscribe to, and even the people be befriend.

    I do not believe that information pertinent to the welfare of our nation or its people or its business dealings should be hidden from public view. I object to the Tea Party hiding its members and trying to be a public charity.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2014 3:40 p.m.

    I hope they can at least hold your phone while they work on getting the warrant to search it. Otherwise it gives crooks a few hours or days to erase their incoming and outgoing calls and their messages.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 27, 2014 3:26 p.m.

    Lets be clear, I don't have any problem with people obtaining the information they need to do their job when they use the right process..... simply to 2 Bits point.....all that data can be obtained, they just need to get a warrant.

    But for example, an officer who pulls someone over for doing 42 in a 35, has no need nor any right to know how much is in ones bank account or where they ate lunch yesterday. But in valid criminal cases, absolutely that information should be able to be gathered, with a warrent.

    Mukkake - I get what you are saying, and that is why I have one machine that is "secure", where I do all my financial transactions, and my connection and storage is encrypted. But going shopping for plane tickets should not give Orbitz the right to place a cookie on my machine to watch where-ever I go after I leave their site.

    The real spies in Utah at the point of the mountain is not the NSA, but Adobe who watches every click, every hover, every link you use. We do analytics on this data, I see it everyday.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 27, 2014 11:47 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Mike -- We agree!

    So tell me,
    Why do you continue to support GW Bush and the rest of the GOP with their "Patriot Act", and Bush's NSA spy center in Draper, Utah?

  • Mukkake Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2014 10:49 a.m.


    That's the price of using free services. If you don't like it you can always use privacy-based competitors like Tor, DuckDuckGo, and Firefox (which has better plugins for privacy control). There are also lots of mail clients, tunnels, spoofs, and other tools you can use to hide your identity and internet use. You can root/jailbreak your phone and remove applications and services you don't like, or even install custom Operating Systems.

    The trade-off is reduced services, reduced user friendliness, and reduced support, but those things cost money, which is paid by tracking user data and selling it.

    @2 bits
    Porn. Nude Selfies. Credit Card information. Purchases. Bitcoins. Affairs. Embarrassing interests. All of it legal. Stuff the police have no right to if it's not related to a case. There is more information about a person on their phone these days than there is if you searched their house, which requires a warrant as well.

    They can already get a warrant for phone records, so they will just have to wait.

    Besides, I can just encrypt my phone anyhow, so it isn't much use to them.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    June 27, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    The 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

    We are free people. We are not pawns to the government. The government works for us.

    It doesn't matter whether we have anything to hide. The government has no right to intrude on our privacy unless it has probable cause to think that we have broken a law. Our computers, our cell phones, our "day timers" are all private.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 27, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    What are we trying to hide?

    I mean I get the civil liberties angle, but what do we have on our phones that we need to hide from the police when we are arrested?

    They already can't come up and say "give me your phone" and start snooping. This is about when you are arrested for a crime (and the phone may tell them what they need to know).

    I watch First 48. It's not a crime drama. It's actual cases. And I can't count the number of times where info on a suspect's cell phone solved the case. And if they had to wait for a warrant it would have been too late in some cases.

    Often the murderer claims he didn't know the victim, but they see he was calling her dozens of times right before the murder. Or they don't know who the victim went out to meet, so they look at the victim's phone and the last call was the perpetrator. Who drug dealers are calling, and who's calling them.. also good info.

    But I get it... privacy needs to be protected. Not just from the Government.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 27, 2014 5:57 a.m.

    Now if we can just make it just as illegal for the likes of Google, Yahoo, Amazon and the like to "watch" what you are doing on your phone and computer - I think we would have something. But for some reason people just don't get how intrusive these providers have become. That banner ad for HH Photo on top of the DN page just hours hatter I had done a search of photo equipment - not a coincidence. Your privacy is sold off to the highest bidder every time you make a key stroke of phone click.

    We need boundaries from both the government and private interest alike.