With this question, privacy v. safety concerns came up. With this concern, The Petitioner, Riley and his lawyers, argued that smart phones simply contain too much personal information to be legally searched by police without a warrant. Many argues that smart phones reveal the most private thoughts of the average American, containing extensive records of the book read, websites visited, and conversations with friends and family of the owner. They also argue that constitutional protections will be surrendered if police can search the smart phone of every American arrested without a warrant. The Petitioner further contend that smart phones are every bit as sophisticated as personal computers and need to be treated as such and can be through of as a window into the owner’s mind.
Almost a decade ago, Antoine Jones was tried, convicted, and given a life sentence for operating a drug trade. Of course, his possession of illegal drugs and involvement in the selling of illegal drugs is enough for his conviction, but Jones argues that the police secured evidence unconstitutionally. When the police first started observing Jones on suspicions of his participation in the drug trade, they fastened a hidden GPS device on his car, in order to track Jones to a so-called “stash house,” although they did not procure a warrant to use the device. The police were able to successfully apprehend Jones based on evidence procured from the GPS. Citing the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, Jones took his case to the Supreme Court.
Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional. On August 22, 2009, the police stopped David Leon Riley for driving with an expired registration tag.
The judge in the specific Milwaukee case stated that “A person wanted on probable cause (and an arrest warrant) who is taken into custody in a public place where he had no legitimate expectation of privacy cannot complain about how the police learned his location” This argument doesn’t make much sense if you change it to be about something other than a phone. If the police searched the man’s house without a warrant in order to learn his location, then in court any evidence that they obtained within the house would be thrown out. The judge is pretty much
The Fourth Amendment requires a probable cause for arrest. Substantially, particular things are needed to legally conduct a search or seizure. This incorporates arrest, so a search, a seizure, or an arrest cannot take place without reason. Not to mention, there must be a "court order" for Apple to give the government "customer data." So, since a “court order” must be in place for Apple to give the government “customer data,” that “court order” would have to also take place for an arrest that could conceivably follow.
These information was recorde just for the government the government hav request the NSA to recorde the people cellphone calls and send it to them. The National Security Agency is gathering nearly 5 billion records a day on the whereabouts of cellphones around the world, according to top-secret documents and interviews with U.S.
I fear due to the recent rulings on the Patriot Act and NSA may allow people who utilize Apple’s newest feature may find that they may face a subpoena to open their phones and consequently have them used against them. As seen in the Salinas case refusal to do so may preemptively determine the defendant guilty for choosing to protect their privacy. As companies like Apple and Google push to make our communications more secure to cater toward their clientele. It will be interesting to see how the fifth amendment will apply in a digital age and to see what measures will be taken to protect or limit our
Apple is trying to protect the American people that own any apple product from the FBI. The FBI wants apple to unlock the phone from the San Bernardino 's but Apple is not doing it because it is against the 4th amendment. Since the FBI can’t get into it because Apple can not give permission to the FBI, also they don’t have any reason to look at the phone so Apple did not allow tat to happen. My opinion on this matter is that apple is doing the right thing, if the government was able to get a hold of all the information that a single person had on their phone, I am pretty sure people would be embarrassed because of all the personal information on their phones. If Apple gave them the right to look through their phone than the 4th amendment would be compromised and then that can start an up riot.
The “Nothing-to-Hide Argument” Analyzed: In this rhetorical analysis, I will be taking a look at Daniel J. Solove’s essay “The Nothing-to-Hide Argument,” which is about privacy in the context of personal information and government data collection (Solove 734). Solove’s main argument in his essay is that the general public has a narrow perception of what privacy really is. The purpose behind his main argument is to expose the problems with the nothing-to-hide argument while presenting a way to challenge it for his target audience, government officials. Solove’s argument to his target audience is effective through his exemplary use of substance, organization, and style in his essay.
Cellphones are everywhere, with everyone at all time that it has become a danger to our privacy. During the last decade, technology has been evolving at a speedy rate. As predicted by George Orwell the parallel elements between his novel and our present day are significant. We have similar technology, similar tracking, similar invasion of privacy, and similar over reaches. The present has become an updated version of George Orwell’s 1984 novel.
Nowadays, “privacy” is becoming a popular conversation topic. Many people believe that if they do not do anything wrong in the face of technology and security, then they have nothing to hide. Professor Daniel J. Solove of George Washington University Law School, an internationally known expert in privacy law, wrote the article Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in May of 2011. Solove explains what privacy is and the value of privacy, and he insists that the ‘nothing to hide’ argument is wrong in this article. In the article, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”, Daniel J. Solove uses ethos, pathos, and logos effectively by using strong sources, using
The U.S. government is invading the privacy of its’ citizens through the use of mobile devices such as phones and laptops. This use of privacy invasion is similar to the technology used in George Orwell’s novel 1984. What makes today relate to 1984 is how the government tracks us through location, voice, and messaging. George Orwell’s 1984 has a totalitarian government that can track its’ citizens through location with the use of telescreens. In the novel, telescreens can track your location in a room through a telescreen, which is demonstrated by Winston´s thought ¨so long as you remained within the field of vision … you could be seen¨ (Orwell, page 3).
Cell phone can unveil information within our call history, text messages, pictures, and even internet searches. Access to our cell phones is like access to our lives. No matter how much time passes, the fourth amendment continues to
In our world, Society gets watched twenty-four seven and some people know it, but they either do not care or just go along. So in reality, Society could prevent this problem by removing social media off of their habits and be spy free. “Young adults (85% of whom are smartphone owners) are also incorporating their mobile devices into a host of information seeking and transactional behaviors. About three-quarters of 18-29 year old smartphone owners have used their phone in the last year to get information about a health condition; about seven-in-ten have used their phone to do online banking or to look up information about job; 44% have consumed educational content on their phone; and 34% have used their phone to apply for a job.” “Behind Winston’s back the voice from the telescreen was still babbling away...of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment” (2-3).
That's my tracker,” by Peter Maass and Megha Rajagopalan they talk about how every personal information that a citizen has safe on their phone is not safe and that their phones are in danger. In the article, they mention how “1.3 million of call data was collected”. Millions of cell phone users have been swept up in government surveillance of their calls. That proves that cell phone companies have definitely been watching our every move and how our phones have obviously become like our personal trackers. In the article, they also mention how “Cellular systems constantly check and record the location of all phones on their networks – and this data is particularly treasured by police departments and online advertisers” this obviously shows that the government is able to obtain private information from citizens.
