
FBI cannot even look at your phone lock screen without a warrant, rules judge - arkadiyt
https://9to5mac.com/2020/05/22/phone-lock-screen/
======
mehrdadn
Precedents are interesting:

> Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 337 (2000) (concluding Border Patrol
> agent searched a bag by squeezing it)

> Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321, 324–25 (1987) (holding officer searched
> stereo equipment by moving it so that the officer could view concealed
> serial numbers).

The idea seems to be that pushing the power button is what constituted a
search, not taking a picture of the lock screen. Presumably if the lock screen
was somehow already on at that point (which normally it wouldn't be) then it
might be fair game to take a picture without a warrant.

~~~
chrismcb
That first one is interesting... I once stopped for a load of pumpkin bread
before boarding a plane. I put it into my backpack. The tsa agent saw the
buldge and started to punch my backpack! I yelled at him to stop and he said
he thought it was a water bottle... Yeah, like it is a good idea to punch
something you think might be explosive.

~~~
amscanne
I’m pretty sure that most TSA employees forgot why water bottles aren’t
allowed a long time ago (if they ever knew), and now are just searching for
water bottles directly. That’s the consequence of hard and fast rules — people
stop using their brains.

~~~
remarkEon
TSA employees are paid for security theatre - not actual security. I don't
mean to denigrate these folks too much but ... they're not exactly the kind of
people I'd hire to, say, walk my dog. They stand there and pretend they're
doing "security" but what they're really doing is bureaucracy and political
patronage.

Suppose for a moment we wanted to implement the kind of security that TSA
pretends to represent. We'd thus deputize them as part of DoD (or DHS) and
they'd carry MP5s and have actual training standards, weight standards,
quarterly fitness reports, have to get security clearances etc. etc. They'd do
drills at a mock airport, and we'd eventually do away with the "checkpoint"
style of security at airports that's really just an invitation for a suicide
bomber.

I once saw a TSA employee at LAX insist on putting a kid's balloon from
Disneyland, that was clear and 100% see-through, through the X-ray machine. I
watched this and, as I suspected, the TSA agent never even considered that
because the balloon was filled with helium it of course wouldn't move through
the machine on the conveyor belt and it got stuck. "Checkpoint" indefinitely
shut down.

Security Theatre, indeed.

~~~
m10i
Why does the balloon being filled with helium mean it wouldn’t move through
the machine on the conveyor belt? Just curious.

~~~
aetch
The balloon floats and will not touch the conveyor belt?

~~~
m10i
Hey thanks for the answer. I can be too literal, so at the time I wasn't sure
if that's what he was implying, or if there was some other special property
about helium in a balloon in an X-ray machine that I didn't know of.

------
chrisco255
We need more rulings like this and then we need to grant Snowden clemency.

~~~
qppo
Snowden's legal situation is up to him at this point. The only way for
whistleblower precedent to be set is for him to stand trial.

~~~
boolcow
It's really up to us citizens that benefited from his whistleblowing to bail
him out. But of course we don't because we're not as good a society as we
might be.

~~~
ultrarunner
Could you elaborate? His revelations were that the government kinda does what
it wants despite the law; what is it that is up to me (or any other
individual) to right the wrongs of that same government?

~~~
pembrook
Any democratic government is simply a body elected to represent the wishes of
the people.

If the government isn't righting its wrongs, it's because you (not necessarily
_you_ specifically, but "the people" as a whole) have explicitly put in power
the people who are doing the bad things.

This is everybody's fault. Yours included. We all enabled this to happen.

That's the beauty of a democratic system. It clarifies and cuts through to the
core of our culture. Americans fear the idea of foreign terrorists more than
we fear privacy encroachment, and thus, we were delivered the results of that
belief.

The system worked! It represented our wishes perfectly. The problem isn't
"them" (the government). It's us.

~~~
akiselev
That may have been true for Americans living two hundred years ago when
constituents voted for the people who birthed the two party system, but it
certainly isn't today. Gerrymandering of House districts, the limit on the
number of Representatives, the nature of the Senate in our bicameral
legislature, and the electoral college all guarantee that some votes will
count significantly more than others. That's not a democracy, it's a facade
that replaced democracy a long time ago (and one could argue was never a
democracy to begin with, since many people alive today gained the right to
vote in living memory).

~~~
agensaequivocum
We are not a democracy nor were we supposed to be.

~~~
dane-pgp
To potentially explain the views of the people down-voting you, consider these
articles explaining a common misconception:

[https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-
democra...](https://mises.org/wire/stop-saying-were-republic-not-democracy)

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-
u-s...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-11/is-u-s-republic-
or-democracy-why-some-conservatives-pick-a-side)

[https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-
democrac...](https://thebaffler.com/latest/were-a-republic-not-a-democracy-
burmila)

~~~
agensaequivocum
They are clearly reading Federalist 10 out of context. He clearly says, among
other things, there is a mean between to little representation vs to much.

> It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean,
> on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too
> much the number of electors, you render the representative too little
> acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by
> reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too
> little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects.

A democracy doesn't have representation. So while his definition maybe
different than what we tend to understand today, neither is he arguing that
"republic" is the same as what we mean by "democracy" today.

------
mrfusion
But they can get your browsing history without a warrant. What gives?

~~~
billme
Previous answer:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23270816](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23270816)

~~~
antpls
I understand from this link that they can look into cloud-uploaded browsing
history without warrant, but not into the local history stored on the phone

~~~
billme
Correct, unless you give your phone to a third-party - for example, to get
repaired:

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/geek-squads-
relationsh...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/geek-squads-relationship-
fbi-cozier-we-thought)

------
kevin_thibedeau
What about Border Patrol within the 100 mile perimeter zone? Do they still get
a blank check to wipe their ass with the constitution?

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Even more fun if you're a foreigner visiting and no constitutional protections
apply to you in the first place.

Haven't had my phone searched yet but the last two times I've crossed the
border in the Niagara area for short ski trips I've had my car searched, been
held for an hour, and a bunch of hostility directed my way.

The fear that the next time around they'll force me to unlock my phone and
waltz through my Facebook profile etc. means that even after the border
closure and lockdown is lifted, I just won't be coming to your country and
spending money there anymore.

------
notadog
Here is the PDF of the ruling: [https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/gov.u...](https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-
content/uploads/2020/05/gov.uscourts.wawd_.274574.73.0.pdf)

------
billme
(Duplicate) - prior comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269835](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23269835)

------
ddingus
From my reading, they could look, and if the phone display is on, fair game.

The key judgement here appears to be whether some action, and or change in the
state of the person and their property, made the information available.

Entirely passive means still apply, however briefly.

------
angel_j
But those international chats? Yeah the whole DoD is gonna need to see those,
no warrant required.

------
broooder
Why is the word “even” in the headline? What does that “even” mean?

~~~
jackvalentine
It's used to emphasize the limit that would be suprising to most people.

"He can't even throw a ball one metre!"

------
vmception
Although I'm favorable to this opinion, I don't treat anything in the 9th
circuit as consensus anymore. Especially at federal district courts
geographically within them. 2nd and 4th circuit rulings just have so much more
weight in the direction of the country. 9th circuit just reminds you how
irreconcilable 40% of the country's land mass is with the winning
administration.

~~~
chrisco255
Weird tangent. The ruling was not handed down from the 9th circuit. It was the
Western District Court of Washington State.
([https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/](https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/)). 9th
circuit is an appeals court.

~~~
_bender_
I don't agree with everything the commenter is saying but they are pointing
out that the Western District Court of Washington is a federal district court
under the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction, so for this new rule to have significant
weight it would need to be affirmed by the 9th Circuit

~~~
chrisco255
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that would mean it would need to be
appealed? Why would the defendant appeal when the court ruled in their favor?

~~~
_bender_
You're right, it would need to be appealed. The defendant would not appeal,
but the government could, and likely will if it views this as a significant
burden to police practice. An important thing to note is that federal district
court decisions are not binding on other federal district courts (the
decisions are persuasive authority, but do not force another judge's hands).
Any other judge could decide not to follow this rule. Only if the rule is
announced by the 9th circuit would district courts in the 9th circuit have to
follow the rule.

My main point is that while this is a promising decision, it is very far from
the law of the land. And, as the original commenter pointed out, even if the
9th circuit upholds this ruling, the 9th circuit is only one circuit among
many, and is often viewed as the most liberal circuit and not necessarily
representative of the federal judiciary as a whole.

