Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

That is an issue that should be mentioned, but I wouldn't quite characterize it that way.

> The United States concedes that the search incident to arrest exception may not be stretched to cover a search of files accessed remotely—that is, a search of files stored in the cloud. See Brief for United States in No. 13–212, at 43–44. Such a search would be like finding a key in a suspect’s pocket and arguing that it allowed law enforcement to unlock and search a house. But officers searching a phone’s data would not typically know whether the information they are viewing was stored locally at the time of the arrest or has been pulled from the cloud.

Slip. Op. at 21.

There's two ways to read the first sentence.

1) We will assume for the sake of argument that documents in the cloud are protected, as the government says.

2) Even the government admits that documents in the cloud are protected.

Because the Court follows up with its own analogy ("like finding a key in a suspect's pocket"), I think reading (2) is more natural. The Court isn't just restating the Government's opinion, but acknowledging the shared premise, with the implication that the Government must share reasoning that logically flows from that premise.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: