Search and Seizure Ruling
02-13-2011, 12:31 PM
#1
The Rebel
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Thread Starter
Search and Seizure Ruling
I'd be interested to hear "our" resident attorneys' opinions on this:
http://volokh.com/2011/02/09/court-h...rth-amendment/
http://volokh.com/2011/02/09/court-h...rth-amendment/
02-13-2011, 02:13 PM
#4
Read the OT forum? Life's too short. I burn enough hours here in the "real" OT forum...
Anyway, I agree with the finding that stealing information out of my wallet is the same as stealing information out of the computer in my car. This becomes a situation of "guilty until proven innocent" but there's also the matter of once damage has been done (a person injured or dead, money stolen) then there is the action of the legal system to go to those places where evidence will reveal the truth (having a forensic accountant in the family help with understanding how the law prosecutes and persecutes in the USA, and how contract law favors the rich.) So this becomes a case of the rich are innocent and the poor will be found guilty, as was assumed in the first place.
For the first half of my career in the technology industry, I'd sign employment and contractor agreements saying anything and everything I created or left to reside on corporate, employer or customer computers was their property. Then, about 1993, when I first signed one of these stupid documents in the US, it was just a little too egregious, especially since the intellectual property was being stolen from the inventors because of these absurd pieces of paper and whole companies and industries were forming ... so it got me to thinking ... if I bring my thoughts onto their campus, are they still my thoughts? If I bring my cash into their building, is it their cash? All those Intellectual Property attorneys have been chasing the ambulances of the tech industry for decades. It's a very sharp, two-edged sword. If I educate myself while my employer provides a fertile place to invent technology, who has earned the right to what seeds were planted in my mind and later harvested elsewhere?
So, in 1996, I refused to sign the "everything is ours" paperwork. I instead submitted an "everything is mine" document. After some back-and-forth, I still got the contract to do the job and later got a subsequent employer to agree to the same document despite the bleating from HR. And just as well.
As for cars, well, my car is my property and so is every bit inside it until, f'risntance, I agree to give over any data to a tech to diagnose a misfire, etc. If a cop can't see it while standing outside, then he can't be allowed to know it, either.
If I rent a car and drive it outside the agreed area (people renting cars and driving them on beaches or into Canada) or drive it faster than the rental agreement allows, that's my fault and the rental car company has their right to impose agreed fees or penalties (which must be done and agreed upon apriori.)
But in the USA, while I think we do need to worry about IP rights, I would first worry about human rights. So long as a cop can stop any car at random, drag that person out onto the ground and shoot them with a real gun or a Tazer, injure or kill them, assault them, be found guilty of these crimes and yet nothing changes, well, I'm not too worried about the ABS data in the data logger even though it's clearly illegal and the car companies should not be allowed to sell a product without first disclosing "oh yeah, when we built this TV, we put a camera in the front and we feed a continuous video signal back to our factory so we can laugh at you choking on a Pretzel." Where in the purchase document and warranty paperwork, do I sign consent for the vendor to spy on me with no cause in the expectation that perhaps I might do something they don't like and then they'd take that information and use it against me?
I think I need to carry another tool in the car with me -- an EM pulse gun to wipe every electron off silicon wafer in every car within a mile radius if I ever crash my 911 ...
There! That's the best I can do for an OT rant on a Sunday morning ... : )
Anyway, I agree with the finding that stealing information out of my wallet is the same as stealing information out of the computer in my car. This becomes a situation of "guilty until proven innocent" but there's also the matter of once damage has been done (a person injured or dead, money stolen) then there is the action of the legal system to go to those places where evidence will reveal the truth (having a forensic accountant in the family help with understanding how the law prosecutes and persecutes in the USA, and how contract law favors the rich.) So this becomes a case of the rich are innocent and the poor will be found guilty, as was assumed in the first place.
For the first half of my career in the technology industry, I'd sign employment and contractor agreements saying anything and everything I created or left to reside on corporate, employer or customer computers was their property. Then, about 1993, when I first signed one of these stupid documents in the US, it was just a little too egregious, especially since the intellectual property was being stolen from the inventors because of these absurd pieces of paper and whole companies and industries were forming ... so it got me to thinking ... if I bring my thoughts onto their campus, are they still my thoughts? If I bring my cash into their building, is it their cash? All those Intellectual Property attorneys have been chasing the ambulances of the tech industry for decades. It's a very sharp, two-edged sword. If I educate myself while my employer provides a fertile place to invent technology, who has earned the right to what seeds were planted in my mind and later harvested elsewhere?
So, in 1996, I refused to sign the "everything is ours" paperwork. I instead submitted an "everything is mine" document. After some back-and-forth, I still got the contract to do the job and later got a subsequent employer to agree to the same document despite the bleating from HR. And just as well.
As for cars, well, my car is my property and so is every bit inside it until, f'risntance, I agree to give over any data to a tech to diagnose a misfire, etc. If a cop can't see it while standing outside, then he can't be allowed to know it, either.
If I rent a car and drive it outside the agreed area (people renting cars and driving them on beaches or into Canada) or drive it faster than the rental agreement allows, that's my fault and the rental car company has their right to impose agreed fees or penalties (which must be done and agreed upon apriori.)
But in the USA, while I think we do need to worry about IP rights, I would first worry about human rights. So long as a cop can stop any car at random, drag that person out onto the ground and shoot them with a real gun or a Tazer, injure or kill them, assault them, be found guilty of these crimes and yet nothing changes, well, I'm not too worried about the ABS data in the data logger even though it's clearly illegal and the car companies should not be allowed to sell a product without first disclosing "oh yeah, when we built this TV, we put a camera in the front and we feed a continuous video signal back to our factory so we can laugh at you choking on a Pretzel." Where in the purchase document and warranty paperwork, do I sign consent for the vendor to spy on me with no cause in the expectation that perhaps I might do something they don't like and then they'd take that information and use it against me?
I think I need to carry another tool in the car with me -- an EM pulse gun to wipe every electron off silicon wafer in every car within a mile radius if I ever crash my 911 ...
There! That's the best I can do for an OT rant on a Sunday morning ... : )
02-13-2011, 02:24 PM
#5
Nordschleife Master
^ Well stated.
Trending Topics
02-13-2011, 05:49 PM
#8
Nordschleife Master
02-14-2011, 01:12 AM
#10
Nordschleife Master
02-14-2011, 01:08 PM
#11
Drifting
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Belmont Shore in Long Beach CA
Posts: 2,740
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Intellectual property...
You should here about the looser who invented the Frappucino at Starbucks. They have that ,"everything is our property if you invent while working with us", agreement. It's not really an agreement as it is a way to muscle people out of their ideas and taking control of them. Needless to say he wad compensated but hr did not receive the equity that he deserves.
You should here about the looser who invented the Frappucino at Starbucks. They have that ,"everything is our property if you invent while working with us", agreement. It's not really an agreement as it is a way to muscle people out of their ideas and taking control of them. Needless to say he wad compensated but hr did not receive the equity that he deserves.
04-10-2011, 04:35 PM
#14
Race Director
Read the OT forum? Life's too short. I burn enough hours here in the "real" OT forum...
Anyway, I agree with the finding that stealing information out of my wallet is the same as stealing information out of the computer in my car. This becomes a situation of "guilty until proven innocent" but there's also the matter of once damage has been done (a person injured or dead, money stolen) then there is the action of the legal system to go to those places where evidence will reveal the truth (having a forensic accountant in the family help with understanding how the law prosecutes and persecutes in the USA, and how contract law favors the rich.) So this becomes a case of the rich are innocent and the poor will be found guilty, as was assumed in the first place.
For the first half of my career in the technology industry, I'd sign employment and contractor agreements saying anything and everything I created or left to reside on corporate, employer or customer computers was their property. Then, about 1993, when I first signed one of these stupid documents in the US, it was just a little too egregious, especially since the intellectual property was being stolen from the inventors because of these absurd pieces of paper and whole companies and industries were forming ... so it got me to thinking ... if I bring my thoughts onto their campus, are they still my thoughts? If I bring my cash into their building, is it their cash? All those Intellectual Property attorneys have been chasing the ambulances of the tech industry for decades. It's a very sharp, two-edged sword. If I educate myself while my employer provides a fertile place to invent technology, who has earned the right to what seeds were planted in my mind and later harvested elsewhere?
So, in 1996, I refused to sign the "everything is ours" paperwork. I instead submitted an "everything is mine" document. After some back-and-forth, I still got the contract to do the job and later got a subsequent employer to agree to the same document despite the bleating from HR. And just as well.
As for cars, well, my car is my property and so is every bit inside it until, f'risntance, I agree to give over any data to a tech to diagnose a misfire, etc. If a cop can't see it while standing outside, then he can't be allowed to know it, either.
If I rent a car and drive it outside the agreed area (people renting cars and driving them on beaches or into Canada) or drive it faster than the rental agreement allows, that's my fault and the rental car company has their right to impose agreed fees or penalties (which must be done and agreed upon apriori.)
But in the USA, while I think we do need to worry about IP rights, I would first worry about human rights. So long as a cop can stop any car at random, drag that person out onto the ground and shoot them with a real gun or a Tazer, injure or kill them, assault them, be found guilty of these crimes and yet nothing changes, well, I'm not too worried about the ABS data in the data logger even though it's clearly illegal and the car companies should not be allowed to sell a product without first disclosing "oh yeah, when we built this TV, we put a camera in the front and we feed a continuous video signal back to our factory so we can laugh at you choking on a Pretzel." Where in the purchase document and warranty paperwork, do I sign consent for the vendor to spy on me with no cause in the expectation that perhaps I might do something they don't like and then they'd take that information and use it against me?
I think I need to carry another tool in the car with me -- an EM pulse gun to wipe every electron off silicon wafer in every car within a mile radius if I ever crash my 911 ...
There! That's the best I can do for an OT rant on a Sunday morning ... : )
Anyway, I agree with the finding that stealing information out of my wallet is the same as stealing information out of the computer in my car. This becomes a situation of "guilty until proven innocent" but there's also the matter of once damage has been done (a person injured or dead, money stolen) then there is the action of the legal system to go to those places where evidence will reveal the truth (having a forensic accountant in the family help with understanding how the law prosecutes and persecutes in the USA, and how contract law favors the rich.) So this becomes a case of the rich are innocent and the poor will be found guilty, as was assumed in the first place.
For the first half of my career in the technology industry, I'd sign employment and contractor agreements saying anything and everything I created or left to reside on corporate, employer or customer computers was their property. Then, about 1993, when I first signed one of these stupid documents in the US, it was just a little too egregious, especially since the intellectual property was being stolen from the inventors because of these absurd pieces of paper and whole companies and industries were forming ... so it got me to thinking ... if I bring my thoughts onto their campus, are they still my thoughts? If I bring my cash into their building, is it their cash? All those Intellectual Property attorneys have been chasing the ambulances of the tech industry for decades. It's a very sharp, two-edged sword. If I educate myself while my employer provides a fertile place to invent technology, who has earned the right to what seeds were planted in my mind and later harvested elsewhere?
So, in 1996, I refused to sign the "everything is ours" paperwork. I instead submitted an "everything is mine" document. After some back-and-forth, I still got the contract to do the job and later got a subsequent employer to agree to the same document despite the bleating from HR. And just as well.
As for cars, well, my car is my property and so is every bit inside it until, f'risntance, I agree to give over any data to a tech to diagnose a misfire, etc. If a cop can't see it while standing outside, then he can't be allowed to know it, either.
If I rent a car and drive it outside the agreed area (people renting cars and driving them on beaches or into Canada) or drive it faster than the rental agreement allows, that's my fault and the rental car company has their right to impose agreed fees or penalties (which must be done and agreed upon apriori.)
But in the USA, while I think we do need to worry about IP rights, I would first worry about human rights. So long as a cop can stop any car at random, drag that person out onto the ground and shoot them with a real gun or a Tazer, injure or kill them, assault them, be found guilty of these crimes and yet nothing changes, well, I'm not too worried about the ABS data in the data logger even though it's clearly illegal and the car companies should not be allowed to sell a product without first disclosing "oh yeah, when we built this TV, we put a camera in the front and we feed a continuous video signal back to our factory so we can laugh at you choking on a Pretzel." Where in the purchase document and warranty paperwork, do I sign consent for the vendor to spy on me with no cause in the expectation that perhaps I might do something they don't like and then they'd take that information and use it against me?
I think I need to carry another tool in the car with me -- an EM pulse gun to wipe every electron off silicon wafer in every car within a mile radius if I ever crash my 911 ...
There! That's the best I can do for an OT rant on a Sunday morning ... : )
If you were involved in an accident and wiped clean the car's 'black box' data this suggests you had something to hide.
Another side: I was involved in an investigation some time ago that highlights how this data might come on handy.
A multi-car crash happened. The lead car was struck by a 2nd (following) car and someone in the lead car was severely injured as a result of the impact.
Also, a 3rd car struck the 2nd car.
A lawsuit of course ensued.
The driver of the 2nd car claimed he had brought his car to a stop and the impact of the 3rd car drove his car into the 1st car and as a result he (the driver of the 2nd car) was not at fault for the severe injuries the party in the 1st car suffered.
In this case 'black box' data would have cleared the driver of the 2nd car but it was unfortunately not available. Other physical evidence was sought out and found but I do not know the result.
Sincerely,
Macster.
04-10-2011, 06:32 PM
#15
6th Gear
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to belabor the OT but...
I find this is a strange result (State v. Xinos) in light of another recent CA ruling (People v. Diaz, 2011 ), where the court held that police can legally download or search through data on an arrestee's cell phone, without a warrant or probable cause to believe that device was used in the commission of a crime. From http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs2b-cellprivacy.htm: "The ruling allows police in California to access any data stored on an arrestee's phone--voicemail messages, photos, address book, browsing history, data stored in apps (including social media apps), search history, and chat logs. In addition, depending upon the use of location-enabled services or apps that store data on the phone, the police might also be able to determine the arrestee's past whereabouts."
Seems to me this would controvert the logic behind the State v. Xinos findings regarding law enforcement access to vehicle computers. How is it that the data in a cell phone does not meet the same expectations? Seems to me it is also "precise, digital data [which, currently] is not being exposed to public view or being conveyed to anyone else", so there should be a "reasonable expectation of privacy", no?
Furthermore, where does this slippery slope of data collection end? Does it stop at the device and the information contained within? Potentially not. These are very complex technological issues upon which, frankly, I'm not sure these legal professionals posses proficient understanding to render considered judgement. As the article states, they have access to voicemail messages; so one has to wonder if they are prevented from accessing messages from the cell provider's servers, and how would they prevent new messages from being automatically downloaded to the phone (post the moment of arrest)? Also, many social media apps require active network connections for real-time integration, how do they ensure the data they are accessing isn't being provided via a cloud or some networked connection. What about a laptop or some other synchronization apparatus with which the phone shares this integrated data? Do they have the right to access that information too? If so, then all data, everywhere, is potentially open to search without any protections. I think it may be a long time before we get some definitive answers to exactly what our "digital rights" are, and how they differer from our material ones.
Perhaps two points to take away from such rulings: 1) encrypt your data EVERYWHERE, and 2) when in doubt, leave your cell phone out of sight, secured inside your locked car.
I find this is a strange result (State v. Xinos) in light of another recent CA ruling (People v. Diaz, 2011 ), where the court held that police can legally download or search through data on an arrestee's cell phone, without a warrant or probable cause to believe that device was used in the commission of a crime. From http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs2b-cellprivacy.htm: "The ruling allows police in California to access any data stored on an arrestee's phone--voicemail messages, photos, address book, browsing history, data stored in apps (including social media apps), search history, and chat logs. In addition, depending upon the use of location-enabled services or apps that store data on the phone, the police might also be able to determine the arrestee's past whereabouts."
Seems to me this would controvert the logic behind the State v. Xinos findings regarding law enforcement access to vehicle computers. How is it that the data in a cell phone does not meet the same expectations? Seems to me it is also "precise, digital data [which, currently] is not being exposed to public view or being conveyed to anyone else", so there should be a "reasonable expectation of privacy", no?
Furthermore, where does this slippery slope of data collection end? Does it stop at the device and the information contained within? Potentially not. These are very complex technological issues upon which, frankly, I'm not sure these legal professionals posses proficient understanding to render considered judgement. As the article states, they have access to voicemail messages; so one has to wonder if they are prevented from accessing messages from the cell provider's servers, and how would they prevent new messages from being automatically downloaded to the phone (post the moment of arrest)? Also, many social media apps require active network connections for real-time integration, how do they ensure the data they are accessing isn't being provided via a cloud or some networked connection. What about a laptop or some other synchronization apparatus with which the phone shares this integrated data? Do they have the right to access that information too? If so, then all data, everywhere, is potentially open to search without any protections. I think it may be a long time before we get some definitive answers to exactly what our "digital rights" are, and how they differer from our material ones.
Perhaps two points to take away from such rulings: 1) encrypt your data EVERYWHERE, and 2) when in doubt, leave your cell phone out of sight, secured inside your locked car.
