And if instead it showed that you were in ‘Bad Neighborhood’ at the time of a drive-by shooting from a car fitting the general description of yours, by a person of your gender and skin coloration, then what? Just asking, that’s all. But **Bricker’s **description of *plain view *seems to make it an appropriate question.
In that case, they look at the data in my cell phone and I’m eliminated as a suspect for the robbery, then I allow them to search my car and they find no weapon, or other indication of a crime. I pretty much thank them for doing their job and drive home.
And if you were in the vicinity of the bar? Congratulations you just incriminated yourself.
The problem is that the GPS data would show I did not stop at the bar, so, once again, I’m free to leave.
Well in that case your computer is no different than your trunk. Someone gets a warrant to search your trunk and they can use anything else they find as well. Now if the warrant specified they could only browse certain directories, then it no longer applies (from my layman’s view). Say the warrant specified a single user’s folder on a 10,000 user system. It’d be a violation of scope if they searched all 10,000 user folders. It’d be just like a cop getting a warrant for a single gym user’s locker and searching the entire gym.
However I don’t believe the legal system hasn’t adapted to this reality. Warrants wouldn’t be so specific so in that scenario it’s far more likely 10,000 people would have their privacy compromised.
However when the internet generation starts putting on the robes I expect things will change.
So what you’re saying is you have nothing to hide. Is that correct? Not a single iota of business you’d rather not become public record?
Not turning over information is exactly what we are wanting to do, and what the cops are making impossible. It makes no sense to say that the cops should be able to have all our information and, yet, at the same time, advocate withholding information from them. Pick a side
Furthermore, your statements don’t match with your proclamations that you don’t think it’s right, since you keep defending it. You keep saying that you chose to be online, so you have to accept it. And that’s bullshit.
And don’t say you aren’t saying that. "I could take measures to stop the invasion, but I chose to carry a cell, its my choice to be online. " You’re leaving out the method of actually stopping privacy problems: fighting it legally. You know, what everyone else here is talking about.
In both situations, you can’t have it both ways.
I don’t see a single example of anyone’s cell phone data becoming a matter of public record.
What I’m saying is that I’d rather let them look at my cell phone data if it meant they could eliminate me as a suspect and focus on finding the real villain. To that end, it’s like having a reliable witness with me to testify as to my travel times and locations.
Fine, I certainly have no quarrel with you; if you are satisfied, far be it for me to fight your hypothetical.
I myself though would be less than confident with my own hypothetical. I believe the cops could easily assume I’d tossed the gun, and I would most likely expect to be at least detained, and depending upon my demeanor and/or my answers to specific questions (“Did you have a gun in your car? Do you own any guns? If I get the bomb dog, will he alert on gunpowder residue in your car? We already know you were at location, what were you doing there?” etc. etc.), possibly arrested. I expect I’d be treated to a ride ‘downtown’, my car would be towed and impounded, and at best, it would turn into a really shitty day. Bog forbid it happen on a Friday, because then it likely would be a really, really shitty weekend.
We’ve had plenty of threads detailing cops ‘just doing their jobs’ that resulted in serious miscarriages of justice. It does not require police misconduct, just dogged diligence in pursuit of the information available to them. Like the location information alluded to above. That’s why it is so important to protect ALL private information, and questions about what constitutes “private” are so critical.
Just sayin’.
What if the police said to you, “We have reliable information that someone in this immediate vicinity is smuggling nuclear explosives in their rectum. If we can just stick a finger up your ass, we can eliminate you from the suspect pool.”
Are you ok with that?
What an anal hypothetical.
I misstated my hypothetical, because if the police actually asked your permission, and you gave it, there would not in fact be anything wrong with it.
What I should have asked was whether you think the cops should have the right to stick a finger up your ass without your consent, and without even the knowledge that a rectum related crime has been carried out?
Rectum? Nearly Killed him! 
There are other, far less intrusive methods, of screening for Nuclear Anal Devices, (NADS)
Or, mobile nuclear anal devices, sometimes referred to as GONADS. It appears to be becoming a common practice when boarding an airline for the authorities to search for said GONADS.
There goes that logic again. If I have nothing to hide, why shouldn’t I just give them what they ask. But in this case, it is backwards. If the police have nothing to hide, why don’t they just give the ACLU what they asked for?
They are not stupid. They will not freely give potential evidence against themselves. But somehow it makes sense that you should?
I am hosed if someone were to search my house for GSR, blood and assorted DNA - we regularly shoot, I once had 2 dogs break out in a fight in the living room [a very broody bitch with puppies, and a friends female dog, very obviously a defensive move] and being female with PCOS, monthly I used to bleed out, and blood got all over various parts of the bathroom, and even parts of the house. Enough that after cleanup with bleach there would be the lovely blue glow, but probably not enough to check for DNA or type … There is probably blood residue n my car, on assorted furniture … at friends houses [it is amazing how a tiny speck of blood can smear off the sole of a sneaker]
I think allowing access to DNA, electronic DNA [GPS in this instance] call records, email files and texts can be a bad thing.
Heck, I just texted a friend that I just slaughtered a particular character in a game that has a reasonably common modern USAian name … what if there were someone in Hartford by that name that just got murdered? I would be fucked … until I could alibi myself.
This is a good point. Goose and Gander and all that.
I would much prefer the police came forward with a written policy over the possible/intended uses of these devices. That would be the better choice than withholding that info, IMO.
Bluetooth connectivity is already on if one is using a Bluetooth headset – and hands-free is the only legal way to use a cellphone while driving in many jurisdictions.
cough wired headets only for me cough
I detest bluetooth, the boops and beeps are counterintuitive to me, I can not get one to function properly without having the booklet open in front of me to save my life, which sort of makes driving with one impossible.
It’s not a matter of simply having Bluetooth enabled – it’s a matter of creating a Bluetooth connection with that particular device. This requires the phone’s user to take an affirmative step of some kind; it doesn’t happen automatically.