Arizona Police Told To Search Arrestee iPhones For Anti-Police Apps

from the unreasonable-search-and... dept

Mon, Jun 27th 2011 2:15pm — Mike Masnick

Last week's big LulzSec (pre-disbandment) dump of Arizona police info apparently included some documents telling police to search the iPhones of arrestees for specific apps, including OpenWatch, a simple app for recording people (targeted at authorities) without it displaying on the phone that they're being recorded. The police were also told to look for speed trap identifying apps and an app that lets people spoof caller ID numbers. As we've discussed a few times, there are some legal questions about whether or not cops can just search your iPhone during, say, a routine traffic stop, but tragically a few courts have said it's fine. That seems rather troubling, as the cops can search your phone after just a routine traffic stop... and then potentially get you in more trouble just because they don't like the types of apps you have?

Separately, the article notes that the Justice Department has been sending around notices to local law enforcement, telling them to be aware that iPhone users have a feature that lets them remotely wipe their phones. This is part of the mobile me service, and the wiping has a perfectly legitimate purpose: to let someone who has lost their phone or had it stolen, to wipe the data from the phone. It's pretty useful, really. But, to police who are seizing phones and want to search them later, they're scared that evidence can be destroyed this way, so the Justice Department is telling them to store the phone in Faraday bags to keep them disconnected from any network, so they can't receive the "wipe" signal.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: apps, iphones, lulzsec, police

68 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:25pm

If the police seize a phone, they should take all precautions to make sure that data is not removed or the evidence tampered with in any way. Use of a remote wipe would be tampering with evidence, without a doubt. Once something has been taken as evidence, you have no rights to modify it.

As for the searches, the phone is within the arm reach area in the car generally, and looking at the phone should not be considered different from looking through a stack of papers on the passenger's seat. The method that the data is stored does not grant it any more or any less immunity from search.

The use of software that would be used for illegal purposes, or purposes to avoid legal detection would be the same as having a sheet of paper with those same instructions on them. Clearly officers would ask questions if they saw it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re:
  So if my Android phone contains an encrypted filesystem, would they need a search warrant for me to hand over my password in your sick little world?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Posted below but I want it at the top of the thread:
    
    https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re:
  As for the searches, the phone is within the arm reach area in the car generally, and looking at the phone should not be considered different from looking through a stack of papers on the passenger's seat. The method that the data is stored does not grant it any more or any less immunity from search.
  
  Wrong. This is no different than a police officer demanding that I open a locked box or suitcase. If they do not have a warrant to search those boxes, they should be required to have a warrant to search my phone.
  
  If something is in the open, that is one thing, but the contents of my phone are not in the open. They are behind a closed door.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Bah, my thought train derailed in the middle of the trip. At least the overall message is still relatively clear.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:34pm
  
  Re:
  I think the issue here is not what situations allow them to search your phone, but what they're looking for once they've already gotten to the point of digging through your pockets and opening your trunk while you're in handcuffs. If they were being told to look for Mormon religious documents or invitations to NRA rallies would that be ok?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re: Papers?
  A+ trolling!! You are good.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lbds137 (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re:
  Like the laptops seized by DHS officials, smartphones increasingly contain tons of personal information that people carry around with them for convenience. Do you think it's reasonable to let a cop grab your laptop from the front passenger seat (that's where I keep my laptop case) since it's "within the arm reach area"? I sure don't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:52pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Do you think it's reasonable to let a cop grab your laptop from the front passenger seat (that's where I keep my laptop case) since it's "within the arm reach area"?
    
    Given this recent report (about the Fullerton Cop and the iPad at Miami Airport), do you think it's reasonable not to completely encrypt documents on your portable electronics?
    
    Suppose you have an obligation of client confidentiality. Is it ethical not to encrypt those documents?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:46pm
  
  Re:
  The fact that the phone itself is in plain view does not necessarily mean that all the data on the phone should be considered "in plain view" for 4th Amendment purposes. This is an issue that the courts really haven't worked out yet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think you are right, but I also think that if other things in that area are "in plain view", it would be hard to say that the phone is not. A good early example would be a pager. If it is on your belt, a police officer could push the bottom that reveals that last number that paged, as an example.
    
    A cell phone / laptop is just a digital representation of a stack of paper, and that stack of paper would be in plain view. It's hard to imagine a court running the other way because of the method used to carry the information.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 4:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ... that stack of paper would be in plain view.
      
      Yes. And we all understand perfectly that while a stack of paper is not immediately obvious as contraband; nevertheless, when confronted by a stack of paper, �a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.� (Terry).
      
      We understand it perfectly.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 5:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      A cell phone / laptop is just a digital representation of a stack of paper, and that stack of paper would be in plain view. It's hard to imagine a court running the other way because of the method used to carry the information.
      
      -a locked diary
      -a locked briefcase filled with legal documents
      -an itinerary of everywhere you've been recently
      -a database of everyone you know
      -a record of interactions with your spouse and kids
      -conversations you've had with your lawyer and doctors
      
      Each of those things can be in a stack of paper. Are all of them treated identically in the eyes of what a police officer can just pick up and read without a warrant when they have no reasonable suspicion that it was involved in whatever caused them to have an interest in you?
      
      A laptop or phone can not only be each of those, it can be every one of them, and more, all at once.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 5:44pm
        
        The Disappearing Container Doctrine (was Re: Re: Re: Re:)
        Are all of them treated identically ... ?
        
        �Package Bombs, Footlockers, and Laptops: What the Disappearing Container Doctrine Can Tell Us About the Fourth Amendment� by Cynthia Lee (George Washington University Law School):
        
        Abstract:
        In the 1970s, the Court announced in a series of cases that police officers with probable cause to believe contraband or evidence of a crime is within a container must obtain a warrant from a neutral, detached judicial officer before searching that container. In requiring a search warrant, the Container Doctrine put portable containers on an almost equal footing with houses, which enjoy unquestioned Fourth Amendment protection.
        
        This Article demonstrates that the Container Doctrine is fast becoming a historical relic as the Court expands the ways in which law enforcement officers can search containers without first obtaining a warrant issued by a judicial officer. Studying the numerous ways in which the Court has undermined the Container Doctrine is useful for several reasons. First, the erosion of the Container Doctrine is emblematic of a more tectonic jurisprudential shift - the Court�s movement away from the Warrant Preference view (the belief that the Fourth Amendment expresses a preference for warrants) and its gradual embrace of the Separate Clauses (or Reasonableness) view of the Fourth Amendment. Second, the Court�s willingness to allow a growing number of container searches without warrants suggests a deep judicial ambivalence about the effectiveness of warrant formalism. Third, the demise of the Container Doctrine, and its corresponding impact on the poor and homeless, reflects a troubling indifference to non-majoritarian interests.
        
        [...]
        
        I'm about halfway through reading this paper right now. Without having finished it yet, I'll conditionally recommend it. From other reading �paying attention to the cases as they come out� I'm already inclined to agree that the container doctrine is dead.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 10:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Josh, if the officer said "Can I look in the briefcase?" and the driver said no, it would be reason enough for the officer to further question the person.
        
        A single piece of paper (or a single file) that pertains to a court case wouldn't exactly lock the rest of it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 4:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        if the officer said "Can I look in the briefcase?" and the driver said no, it would be reason enough for the officer to further question the person.
        
        Suppose I wish to exercise my Constitutional rights against unreasonable searches. How would I go about that in this situation?
        
        Routine traffic stop. Was going 10mph over the speed limit. Didn't see the sign that changed the limit. My car is properly tagged and inspected. My license is current, my insurance is active. The only law that was broken was the speed limit. The officer sees my backpack on the passenger seat, which has my laptop in it, and asks if he can look in it. Do I:
        -say "Yes" and give up my rights against an obvious unreasonable search?
        -say "No" and (in your bizarre opinion) somehow give him reason to question me further?
        -ask for a warrant, as in the post above yours noted seems to be obsolete?
        -ask for his "reasons" for wanting to look into it after he has already proved his unreasonableness in asking?
        
        Please enlighten me in how I exercise and protect my Constitutional right against an obvious unreasonable search and governmental intrusion into my personal life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ComputerAddict (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 6:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "-say "No" and (in your bizarre opinion) somehow give him reason to question me further?"
        
        Well obviously you have something to hide.. If you were an innocent infringer you'd have nothing to fear by the cops searching your personal data. /sarc
        
        Unfortunately, by not allowing the search, if the cop really wants to know whats inside, he'll arrest you under the Patriot act, they'll tow your car to the impound while they try and make up something to get a warrant... and while they may not be able to find a judge to grant it, you just wasted 48 hours of your life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 6:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Josh, you are always free to say no to a search. But in saying no, you are adding a little bit of fuel to the fire, which the police may use towards building probably cause to bring in a drug dog, example. Saying no to a "look around", and say perhaps having a pack of rolling paper visible in the car or a "pot club of california" card in your wallet (it got stuck on the back of your license when you gave it to the cop) may be enough to merit a sniff.
        
        We have to remember in all of this story that the phones in question are being actually seized, not just looked at. Putting them in a Faraday bag to protect them suggests that the police have already taken possession and have no reason to return it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 7:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Suppose I wish to exercise my Constitutional rights...
        
        As in all fourth amendment cases, this is a fact-intensive question.
        
        � Are you white, or black, asian, hispanic, native american, other minority? Are you driving a nice car or an old beater?
        � Is it daytime or nightime? Urban, suburban or rural? Are there other non-police witnesses around? Will any of those witnesses be credible? Are you in a "high crime" area?
        � Does the policeman look like a habitual steroid abuser? Is he visibly angry-or shaking-can you see the veins popping out on his neck? How many policeman have stopped you? Do any of the policemen look like steroid abusers?
        
        It's a very fact-intensive inquiry. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        huh?, 20 Jun 2013 @ 7:33pm
        
        Huh? Are you saying that just because someone insists on enjoying their rights makes them suspicious?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Simple Mind (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:39pm
  
  Re:
  I don't think the police have any right to search through a stack of papers in the driver's seat for a routine traffic stop. Because you ran a red light it gives them authority to search you and your car? Many of the things I see the police doing on that show "Cops" are disgusting and should be illegal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 4:16pm
  
  Re:
  Notes Password App I've got.
  Incorrect Password entered, Phone wipes Temp Memory.
  Incorrect Password entered twice, Full Phone Wipe & Reset.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 9:26am
  
  Re:
  They can't search through a stack of papers on your car seat during a routine traffic stop. Why would they be able to take your phone and search it without consent or a warrant?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 10:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Why would they be able to take your phone and search it without consent or a warrant?
    
    In California, the Supreme Court just ruled that law enforcment may stop your car and search it without consent and �in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a violation of a statute or administrative regulation has occurred.� Even if that decision doesn't really stretch quite all the way to iPads, still the officer won't be violating clearly established law. If the officer gets caught on his iPad fishing expedition, it's just catch-and-release time for him.
    
    But for you, you could wind up like Oscar Grant.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 10:00am
  
  Re:
  This might clear a few things up:
  
  https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
E. Zachary Knight (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:27pm

Looks like it is time for someone to modify the remote wipe app to wipe the phone after a specific amount of time without connecting to a control server.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- rubberpants (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re:
  iDeadMansSwitch
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 4:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Had the same thing in mind when I clicked the "comments" link. I guess the idea is an obvious one, which means those Faraday bags are going to become obsolete fast.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ComputerAddict (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 6:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Doesn't work in rural areas... My phone goes out of service all the time, If I accidentally left my phone in my basement I'd end up wiping my phone.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- el_segfaulto (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re:
  That sounds like commie-hippie-nazi-socialist-terrorist talk. You don't want them to win do you? Don't you want to protect our children? Any developer that creates an app like that should spend the rest of their life in Gitmo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "You don't want them to win do you?"
    
    I know you're being sarcastic, but they won a long time ago - regardless of whether you thing "they" are the ploice or terrorists. In fact, the terrorists have been sitting around for the last decade pissing themselves laughing at how many of your freedoms you've given away over a single attack. The police are just happy to fill your privately owned prisons with new employees and legally beat and murder those who disobey.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Phil Sevetson (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 8:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Terrorists Laughing
      PaulT,
      I find fault with your image of the terrorists. Given the number of them who have died at U.S. hands and by U.S. bombs and missiles, the surviving terrorists are mostly hiding in places they hope we don't suspect, chanting their slogans and looking over their shoulders and up at the sky. While swearing vengeance for all their dead buddies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PaulT (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 10:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrorists Laughing
        Yeah, maybe the giggling part wasn't totally accurate, but that's essentially the truth. Whether the aim of the terrorists was to kill people, spread fear, nurture anti-American sentiments or to "remove your freedoms", they've done a bang up job without having to do all that much since 9/11.
        
        While - fortunately - they're nowhere near as closely grouped nor as numerous as the media would have you believe, those left are probably safe in the knowledge that much of their work has been done.
        
        "Given the number of them who have died at U.S. hands and by U.S. bombs and missiles"
        
        ...and the allies which your media always seem to forget took part in much of your work, to the disgust of many of us in those allied countries.
        
        "While swearing vengeance for all their dead buddies."
        
        Joined by the families of the innocents killed during Iraq and Afghanistan, among others. They're still a minority, but it's not over by a long shot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:36pm
  
  Re:
  ""Looks like it is time for someone to modify the remote wipe app to wipe the phone after a specific amount of time without connecting to a control server."
  
  That would be a bad idea for if you left the country and shut your phone off for fear of roming charges, like per say a cruise or going overseas. Unless you mean something else by control server.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Someantimalwareguy, 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It actually is a good idea. You should be syncing your data with a secure server or company system to begin with so you can simply download your important stuff when needed and simply "deadmanswitch" the thing at other times.
    
    One way to go at this would be cheaper by far to just purchase a local SIM with rechargeable minutes - you can get a useful local cell in most countries for 50 USD or less.
    
    Why carry the baggage and face the possibility of having your expensive smartphone stolen and your contact info hacked?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - freak (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 5:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I agree that would cause too much aggravation.
    
    I was thinking that if it was away from the control server for a period of time, then upon re-activation/trying to access, it would request a password, and 2 wrong attempts wipes the phone.
    
    Alternatively, password protect the phone, and get an app that recognizes a second password, to which it responds by wiping the phone. Or maybe just booting into a different part of it's HD that contains nothing but a few token apps.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Smart guy, 28 Jun 2011 @ 10:29am
  
  Response to: E. Zachary Knight on Jun 27th, 2011 @ 2:27pm
  And when you have a flight across seas, then what? Or if you lose signal while in the middle of nowhere, like say on cruise ship? Terrible idea.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:29pm

Glad that
I don't live in or vacation to Arizona. I was going to go to the Grand Canyon this year, but now that I read about the Arizona Police hijinks, I decided to pass.

If you are smart don't visit Arizona without a valid U.S. passport - the anti-immigrant law says they don't have to recognize other states' driver's licenses as valid ID for immigration purposes.

Most likely if they find you with an "illegal" app on your phone you will get charged with..? possession of illegal apps? Is that even on the books yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:30pm
  
  Re: Glad that
  That's a bit of an over-reaction. A friend and I just returned from a trip throughout Arizona, including the Grand Canyon. During the trip we were pulled over for speeding, and my friend happened to be taking a picture of the surrounding scenery with his smartphone as we passed the cop.
  
  I have no doubt the officer saw his phone as we passed, but he did not ask for the phone, let alone dig through photo albums, contacts, text messages, or apps. When he saw my out of state - Texas - license he clearly understood that we were tourists (and did not accuse us of being illegal aliens as another commenter claims). He ultimately let us off with a warning as the speed limit was somewhat poorly marked..
  
  But the point is don't let some wild over-blown fear stop you from a perfectly enjoyable vacation. This was one of the best trips I've taken in a very long time. The scenery from the car is amazing and it only gets better out on the hiking/biking trails.
  
  You should instead fear attacks from bears, mountain lions, and forest fires killing you in the middle of the night [kidding] :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Glad that
    Only slightly snarky - you're not brown, and speak perfect American English, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - el_segfaulto (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:53pm
    
    Re: Re: Glad that
    I am a brown-ish (mother from Mexico, father from Canada) United Statsian. I personally will not be visiting Arizona, not because of the immigration laws (I don't like it but I understand the necessity) but because of stories like these. Sheriff Joe has already made all law enforcement personnel in that state look extremist. As far as I'm concerned, they made the bed, now they have to lie in it. If their laws and enforcement make potential visits to their state look less attractive, they will have to deal with it. I am under no moral or legal obligation to spend my vacation dollars there, and am happy to go somewhere where I'm not required to show my papers and/or have my Constitutional rights trampled by a jackbooted redneck.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 12:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Glad that
      I can say, with great sadness, that I will never, ever visit the Fascist Republic of Arizona as long as the idiocies perpetrated by the police and judiciary down there are revered by the paranoid electorate. Any place that elevates crypto-Nazis like "Sheriff Joe" to near-sainthood is a place I would stay the hell away from under any and all circumstances. That said, they probably won't rule forever, but long enough that I will never go there in my limited remaining lifetime. Having to "show me your papers" on demand, for no legally supportable reason, is so repugnant to me that I will not condone or abet it by spending my hard-earned money there.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChimpBush McHitlerBurton, 27 Jun 2011 @ 5:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Glad that
    Nah.
    
    Stay out of AZ until the Nazis leave. May take a while. Meanwhile, there are 49 other beautiful States.
    
    CBMHB
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Casey Bouch (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 5:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Glad that
      48 States. I avoid Texas because everything is so BIG there.
      
      I'm sure there are plenty of police on the force in AZ that won't hassle you but it seems like the state supports asshole cops.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- greg barnes, 24 Feb 2012 @ 11:30pm
  
  Re: Glad that
  I live in Az and am totally legal, im white. But that doesnt really matter all i wanted to say is that Az is ridiculous when it comes to legal issues. They want to throw everyone in prison and if I could I would leave but my son is here and I will not leave him. Just saying, Is this not America? sure doesn't seem like it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:33pm

How long?
How long before the wipe facility contains a "dead mans handle" so that it automatically wipes when placed in a Faraday cage?

There is always a countermeasure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prisoner 201, 28 Jun 2011 @ 2:31am
  
  Re: How long?
  This one is even better than the "check in with server" deadman switch.
  
  Even if the radio enviroment is too poor for data traffic on your subscribed network, the phone can still measure other networks. When all RAN traffic vanishes, you are probably looking at a faraday bag (or a sub-basement or some other strongly shielded area of course).
  
  The switch should probably alert you with strong beeps and asks for a password before wiping. The app should probably also do encrypted remote backups for quick and easy restore after wipe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 2:57am
    
    Re: Re: How long?
    Except any serious law enforcement organisation would then be able to set up a local cell to intercept such updates. You would also have to have frequent remote backups so that you don't lose too much data.
    
    The big problem with all these deadman switches is that relying on local signals or a remote server really do give you problems in an area with poor or no signal. Maybe if you had a physical component to it, so that as long as you periodically pressed a button, it won't wipe in non-signal environment - although it would have to /tell/ you that was the case, maybe as mentioned above.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John D (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:41pm

If you want to be taken seriously...
...then you shouldn't be sending around briefs with things like 'iTouch' in them.

This is two years old, but I wonder how many cops think iPhones are the only devices that can do this? Would be a boon for those criminals who have eschewed the iPhone for a less-fruity alternative.

'SHOW ME YOUR APPS!'
'BUT SIR, I HAVE NO APPS! THIS IS A BLACKBERRY!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re: If you want to be taken seriously...
  then you shouldn't be sending around briefs with things like 'iTouch' in them.
  
  iTouch? briefs? - sounds like the TSA...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jef, 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:47pm

Other States?
With all of the attention turned on Arizona, and people saying to avoid the state, I bet other state governments are probably saying "SWEET!! No one is thinking of our policies that are almost exactly the same!"

I'm pretty willing to put money up saying almost every law enforcement agency in the nation has some policy telling it's officers what they should be looking for on some phone / laptop / other personal electronic item. Arizona just happens to be taking the heat for it at this particular time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ur mom, 27 Jun 2011 @ 2:52pm

So if they find one of the apps then what? What a waste if time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ArizonaLoco, 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:09pm

Seriously...
I was born and live in Arizona. Yes, we are the backwards cowboys so to speak, as things are done a little different sometimes out here. That being said I feel that you are all over reacting. They don't search down here without probable cause. They aren't going to pull you over for speeding, see your phone and then request to inspect it. However, if you have kiddie porn on the screen I'm sure it'll get their attention. While I am at it, yes I support SB1070. If you aren't from here then you have no idea what it is like to live in a state on the US border. Before you go getting your panties in a bunch read up on the crimes that happen here. Hell, my niece's husband was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant last year at a freakin' Circle K (convenience store). His family, illegals too, helped him flee to Mexico. (They are charged with aiding and abetting.) A year later they final catch him and he will likely stay in a Mexican jail and will not get extradited due to crappy Mexican laws. Read up on that as Mexican jails/prison are really a joke. Finally on a closing note, born and raised Hispanic/Latino. If you aren't here legally, go home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:30pm
  
  Re: Seriously...
  Buddy, I am from Texas. I know what its like to live in a border state. I'm half white, half Native American. Did you know that people who live here in the US legally shoot each other every day? People are all shitty. Every damned one. Just because someone lives on the wrong side of an imaginary line doesn't make them better or worse than anyone else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - txpatriot, 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Seriously...
    If the concept of "citizenship" and "illegal entry" really mean so little, why not revoke all citizenship laws?
    
    If "citizen" means no more or less than "non-citizen", then what's the point of continuing the charade?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Casey Bouch (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 6:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Seriously...
      I blame Lee Greenwood
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:48pm
  
  Re: Seriously...
  So, those legally in the US never kill each other, commit crimes and help friends and family evade the law?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mirror Neurons on Stun (profile), 27 Jun 2011 @ 3:52pm
  
  Re: Seriously...
  Figures. AZ is a testing ground for some of the most heinous police activity anywhere, as well as crazy legislation. The GOP controls the population center and they test out truly insane policies in places like Tucson to see how the more-liberally minded react to form their strategies without losing power. This has been going on longer than the 20 years I've lived there. This kind of clear unconstitutional action *should* reflect on tourism, and Jan Brewer and the rest of the cretins in PHX should see their political careers ending as the bottom line reflects.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AZSonburnt (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 8:50am
  
  Re: Seriously...
  I'm with AZLoco. I too am an AZ native. Born and bred. My wife...also an AZ native...born and bread. My daughter...a 4th generation AZ native...born and bred. We have family that came here when this was still Mexico.
  
  I travel to Mexico often. I give them money in the form of tourism. I am not a racist. I hate it when people consider me a racist simply because I live in AZ and support a law that allows law enforcement agencies to enforce what is and has been a FEDERAL law. There is a specific word that sticks out when I say the words illegal immigrant. ILLEGAL. It's against the law for them to be here. PERIOD.
  
  Remember back in the late 20th century and early 21st (meaning the double odd years) when you could get pulled over in California (or just about any other state) for DWB (driving while black)? There was no real justification for that. It was indeed racist. Unfortunately though, the new DWB has enough justificationto truly be justified. Guns come from the Mexican border and also leave through that border. Drugs come from the Mexican border. TERRORISTS could just as easily come from that border as plain old illegal immigrants.
  
  I'm not saying they don't come from other places. I'm just saying that you don't hear about illegal CANADIANS coming here and killing people and working without paying taxes and being burdens on our economy and filling our hospital ER's so paying patients with insurance (that they pay way too much for because of said illegals filling the ER's) have to wait hours to be seen for REAL emergencies.
  
  Neither the Mexican government or our own FEDERAL government are doing enough to stop illegals at the border. By ILLEGALS, I mean illegal immigrants whether they are black, brown, blue yellow, green or purple. A cop could just as easily ask me to prove MY citizenship too. All SB1070 does is allow us (the state of Arizona) to do the job that our own federal government refuses to do, which is to stem the amount of illegal immigrants who come into this country via the most widely used border in the country.
  
  Its an argument. You have your reasons for amnesty and all that other "liberal what have you" and I have my reasons for supporting a secure Mexican border that that strongly deters illegal immigration.
  
  But like the argument of Jordan vs. that other guy. I give you the rings...the inordinate amount of rings that Jordan has and the amount of MVP's he's won. I need nothing else to win that argument.
  
  As for this argument. It's illegal. Argument over. Either change the law, or enforce the law. Due to current economic and political constraints, I say enforce.
  
  Flame on kiddies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 4:17pm

Just another sign of Police State. WAKE UP SHEEPLE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2011 @ 5:22pm

Turn the simple passcode feature off and use a strong passcode. This encrypts the data on your phone whereas the simple passcode does not. I set my phone to lock after an hour if unused so I don't have to type it in all the time. If you need to lock it ASAP... turn it off...�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 27 Jun 2011 @ 6:12pm

These applications which the police find of interest, are any of them illegal to have, use or otherwise be in possession of?

IANAL, but from appearances, I would guess not - and therefore the police are way out of bounds in their ill conceived snipe hunt. Further more, it could be construed as harassment.

If the folks employed with law enforcement were actually concerned about protecting the public from the evils in this world, one would assume they that cooperation of the public would be advantageous. However - law enforcement continues to create reasons for the general public to distrust them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 28 Jun 2011 @ 2:09am

Where is the song "I will wipe you out baby"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AZSonburnt (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 8:55am

Biometrics
Why cant my camera on my phone read my face and only unlock for my face? Oh...wait...It can.

Good luck with that one copper. :-)

And my Linux file system is also encrypted...Good luck with that one too copper. :-)

oh and I don't use iPoop. It's for lemmings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 28 Jun 2011 @ 10:41am

Next up, stealth apps
Stealth apps.

Looks like a weather app, but does [whatever an 'illegal' app does].
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zapem, 28 Jun 2011 @ 11:04am

With my phone I can hit a key combination while handing it over to them, and it will wipe all data and apps. Also resetting phone back to factory mode. I can then later re-copy the data and such back later from a memory card backup. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well u Know, 28 Jun 2011 @ 11:05am

Laws and what they REALLY are and are not!!!!
First and foremost the people of this country have nothing to bitch about,You've made it this way.... Everybody bitches about immagration laws, rights being taken away, police policies, and all around dislike's of the country... Well lets put the real truth out there, America the great, the free, the truth, and the right all the time; We are disliked by most of the rest of the planet don't you ppl get that. We are just like any other king, president, dictator, or warlord...We push our own ideas on to everyone we come in contact w/ in nevery way..If they don't conform we blow them out of the water, and if you really look back and quit closing ur minds as well as ur eye's u would see the nation has always been that way... the country they teach us to be so proud of has been stepping on ppl's neck's to get ahead since it started... Our laws and right were given and written by a bunch of ppl who didn't thinkl they should have to pay taxes, but wait we pay taxes huh... second they were also written by abunch of murderer's, and thats the truth... the white man as they say came to a nation of peaceful ppl and killed 90% of them bc they would not give them what they wanted when they wanted it... thats the truth, third this country was also built on the blood, sweat, and minds of a ppl who were enslaved so the white man persay could be just as LAZY as they are now... PPL QUIT WHINING U MADE THIS NATION WHAT IT IS... You didn't think it was a problem then so WHY cry about it now.... I'm Native American and White (Irish,Dutch,German,etc..) My ppl on both side of the pond were persacuted and murdered for one purpose, do u know what that is? MORE, MORE, MORE... I do like and sometimes love this country, but in the long run we're slowly reaping eveything we've sewn... We're in so much debt it's pitiful, and do u know to who? OUR ENEMIES... China,The whole of the middle east, and those who would have us to believe they are our allies... If you want to help, THEN TAKE CARE OF THE U.S. FIRST AND FOREMOST !!! Our kids need homes good ones dont be adopting kids from africa, china, the middle east,,, Our vets and homeless need to be taken care of.. Yes i do know that there are homeless who choose to be but still doesn't mean they don't need to eat atleast one meal thats not garbage... We gripe and whine about the borders and the illegals, but if we kicked all 12 million out of the country who is going to do the jobs they do? Americans are to proud to pick fruit and veggies, to proud to scrub toilets and take out trash, to proud to work for 8.00 usd an hour, and in the long run and the big picture TOO LAZY TO DO WHAT IS NEEDED TO DO FOR RUNNING A COUNTRY THE RIGHT WAY.... In closing we all have nothing to bitch about if we make it this way, we all can't blame everybody else for the laws we have amended and made that are not what we thought they would be... If u want it to change then get the ppl out of office that aren't doing what they say they will do... Be proactive in ur gov. and PLEASE DO NOT SIGN IT IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT !!!! IDIOTS....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Jun 2011 @ 6:58pm

"Sir, I'm going to cite you for an app you have that I don't like. Also, you are wearing a yellow shirt that I don't like. I'm going to cite you for that as well."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]