[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[PapaNew]

Same basic argument I posted previously about government listening to private conversations. The issue is not a convoluted “right to privacy” as much as the articulated 4th Amendment “right to be secure” from government intrusion. Sounds about the same, but the critical difference is “the right to privacy” is construed as something the government has a right to enforce (thus giving government power over “privacy rights” of individuals), whereas “the right to be secure” is a clear proscription against wrongful government interference of individuals. The 4th Amendment “right to be secure” is pointed at limiting government, not giving it more enforcement rights as construed with “right to privacy.”

[PapaNew]

I don't know how they'll rule on cellphones, but here's a recent interview with Scalia regarding about government listening in general (in reference to the NSA, but it could also apply here).

Scalia: Governmental listening to private conversations does not apply to the persons, houses, papers, and effects protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by the 4th Amendment. So Scalia is saying that government doesn’t have to have to show any particular reason, certainly not a probable-cause reason, to listen in on private conversations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0utJAu_iG4&app=desktop

Me: Not sure I agree with that. Here is where I think Scalia is weak and conflicts, IMO, with the original-intent approach of constitutional scholar Judge Robert Bork – when Scalia uses the letter of the text to trump original intent. If original intent and understanding may be reasonably suspected to conflict with the text per se, especially in the current usage of the word(s), a good-faith effort should be made to uncover original intent and understanding. Here, that effort might very well show that something in persons, houses, papers, or effects that may have in fact included governmental listening to private conversations.

Examples:

• secure in your “houses” could certainly include wiretapping
• secure in your “papers” or “effects” may very well have been intended to include private communications.

IMO, the Constitutional issue in government listening (NSA and elsewhere) is not the level of threat, but whether the government has probable cause and whether a warrant would be required (usually required for a house search).

[greenishness]

two words.

“factory reset”

removes everything including access to email accounts, address books, call logs, sms logs.

When you get you're phone back then just type in your e-mail address and password and your contacts are back.

[greenishness]

two words.

“factory reset”

removes everything including access to email accounts, address books, call logs, sms logs.

When you get your phone back then just type in your e-mail address and password and your contacts are back.