SUMMARY:A Supreme Court case centering around a piece of technology that most of us have in hand's reach has the potential to transform privacy law in the digital age. John Yang sits down with Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal to explain the details and the potential effects of the case.
IMO there is NO Constructional Right to allow hiding of criminal activity, especially when there is a warrant. Privacy should not used as an issue to hide criminals and terrorists.
Excerpt
SUMMARY: Since the San Bernardino attack, the FBI has been trying to read the contents of a cell phone used by attacker Syed Farook, made impossible by encryption. Now Apple CEO Tim Cook is rejecting a federal court order to create software to unlock the device. Gwen Ifill talks to Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary of Homeland Security, and Nate Cardozo of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): The battle over privacy vs. security is back front and center, as Apple digs in against the FBI and the courts over the issue of access to data on its phones.
December 2, 2015, that's the day Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, went on a murderous rampage in San Bernardino, California, killing 14 people. Hours later, they were, in turn, killed by police. Ever since, the FBI has been trying to read the contents of a cell phone Farook used.
JAMES COMEY, FBI Director: We still have one of those killers' phones that we have not been able to open. And it's been over two months now. We're still working on it.
GWEN IFILL:Last week, FBI Director James Comey told a Senate hearing that the Apple iPhone's encryption has made it impossible for the agency to access its content.
Now a federal judge in California has ordered the company to create software that will do just that. But Apple CEO Tim Cook forcefully rejected that order early yesterday, writing in a letter addressed to Apple customers: “In the wrong hands, this software, which doesn't exist today, would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession.”
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest disputed that, saying the government wants access only to the single device associated with Farook.
JOSH EARNEST, White House Press Secretary:We're not asking Apple to redesign its products or to create a new back door to its products. This is a much more specific request that the Department of Justice has put forward.
GWEN IFILL: Apple stepped up its protections after NSA leaker (aka traitor) Edward Snowden exposed government surveillance of phone traffic in 2013.
One feature can even erase the iPhone's contents after 10 failed attempts to unlock it. Prosecutors say they are worried that this feature could be on the phone Farook used. And unless Apple devises a way to unlock it, they could lose all its data. The company now has five days to make its formal response in court.
Note that Nate Cardozo could be making a prejudicial assumption, that the FBI is asking Apple to turn over a way to access this iPhone. That need not be the way it happens. Apple could create the way to disable the one feature, the FBI would take the iPhone in question TO APPLE and have them do it. The FBI would NOT get the software and Apple would not have to put the code on any iPhone.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein calls on Apple to obey court order
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): In two closely watched technology cases, the Supreme Court placed limits on law enforcement and on streaming video services. In a unanimous decision, the court decided police officers need a warrant to search cell phones. And, separately, six of the nine justices sided with broadcast networks against an Internet startup that sought to share their signals without paying a fee.
For more on today’s decisions, we turn as always to Marcia Coyle of “The National Law Journal.”
That first case, Marcia, sounds a little bit like, when is a cell phone not a cell phone?
(LAUGHTER)
MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal: Well, it was a fascinating case, a very straightforward decision by the chief justice.
Actually, it was two cases, Gwen, one from Boston and one from California. The cell phone owners had been lawfully arrested, one for concealed weapons and gang-related activity, the other for drug-related activity. One cell phone owner had a smartphone. The other had the older clip phone.
As you know and as we have talked about, a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, generally, if police have a warrant, but there are exceptions to the warrant requirement that the court has recognized over the years. And that exception — one of the exceptions played out in the case today.
Police can search you after you have been arrested, generally for two reasons, one, to look for any weapons that might endanger the officer or the public, and also to preserve possible destruction of evidence — preserve destruction of evidence — preserve evidence that might be destruction.
GWEN IFILL (NewsHour): Ninety percent of American adults have cell phones, most of them containing troves of personal data, including photos, contacts and correspondence.
The Supreme Court heard arguments today in two cases that challenge whether all that information should be fair game for law enforcement when a suspect is placed under arrest.
Marcia Coyle of “The National Law Journal” was in the courtroom this morning, as always, and she is back with us tonight.
Last week, we were talking about streaming video. This week, we’re talking about cell phone data. The Supreme Court is suddenly getting very modern. How did this case get to the court?
MARCIA COYLE, “The National Law Journal”: A new world, as one of the justices said today.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
