Arizona Police Told To Search Arrestee iPhones For Anti-Police Apps
from the unreasonable-search-and... dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glad that
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How long?
There is always a countermeasure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Papers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
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 thread ]
If you want to be taken seriously...
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Other States?
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: If you want to be taken seriously...
iTouch? briefs? - sounds like the TSA...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Seriously...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Seriously...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Glad that
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
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.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Glad that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Seriously...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Seriously...
If "citizen" means no more or less than "non-citizen", then what's the point of continuing the charade?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Seriously...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Glad that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re:
Incorrect Password entered, Phone wipes Temp Memory.
Incorrect Password entered twice, Full Phone Wipe & Reset.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Glad that
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
-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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
The Disappearing Container Doctrine (was Re: Re: Re: Re:)
“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):
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Glad that
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Seriously...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How long?
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 thread ]
Re: Re: How long?
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Terrorists Laughing
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 thread ]
Re: Seriously...
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 thread ]
Biometrics
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 thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Terrorists Laughing
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
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 thread ]
Re: Re:
https://www.eff.org/wp/know-your-rights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: E. Zachary Knight on Jun 27th, 2011 @ 2:27pm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Next up, stealth apps
Looks like a weather app, but does [whatever an 'illegal' app does].
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Laws and what they REALLY are and are not!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Glad that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Glad that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]