Another argument for default phone encryption: to keep criminals from accessing your personal photos and sharing them with others.Not your finest hour, officers. At all.
CHP Officer Sean Harrington, 35, of Martinez… confessed to stealing explicit photos from the cellphone of a second Contra Costa County DUI suspect in August and forwarding those images to at least two CHP colleagues. The five-year CHP veteran called it a "game" among officers, according to an Oct. 14 search warrant affidavit.That this criminal (and his criminal cohorts) happened to wear a uniform makes him no less of a criminal. The difference here is that the phone containing the photos wasn't stolen by a criminal but rather seized during a DUI arrest and accessed during booking...
Not an isolated incident. Officer Shawn Harrington called it a "game."
Education, politics, and anything else that catches my attention.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
When You Live In A Fishbowl...
Having attended West Point, and now being a teacher, I know what it's like to live in a fishbowl--where someone's always watching you, just waiting for you to screw up. When you operate under such conditions you should maintain the highest standards at all times, and when you don't live up to the highest standards you should make sure you don't live down to the lowest:
This speaks to a greater issue: without a warrant, officers have right to seize your phone, but not to access it … and, unless they have a modeling consent form, they can't distribute photos of you, clothed or not.
ReplyDeleteThat this issue even exists? Conservative supreme court. Much more likely to allow these searches … it's why we reasonable people (I'd say liberal, but I'm not) detest people like Clarence Thomas.
Just a bit of context, if you will. The fact he did initially see her pics is not necessarily an issue. Searching the cell phone, assuming they had consent or a warrant, is legit.
ReplyDeleteNow forwarding this to others...that is inexcusable and they need to be held to account either criminally or administratively.
Max, you should check how that "conservative Supreme Court" ruled on cell phone searches before you spout off incorrect statements *yet again*.
ReplyDeleteI know that it was a unanimous decision not to allow this … which I applaud. The conservative side got an easy one right. I said 'more likely,' and I stand by that, since the conservative side seems much more willing to subvert the Constitution, as they did in completely redefining the eminent domain provision. I probably should have extrapolated; I think virtually everyone on the court is a partisan, and I dislike that on both sides. Kennedy is the one guy left who actually thinks about the complicated issues … but, if you're looking at trampling freedoms, it's going to be the right 4 more likely to do it. And the fact that we have CHP officers trading nude selfies from phones they confiscated, shows that the decision has had little weight.
ReplyDeleteYou've made this mistake before--and been called on it. It wasn't the conservative justices on the Supreme Court who decided Kelo. You need to get it right once and for all.
ReplyDeleteMea culpa on Kelo. You are right, I am wrong. And, I'll even back off on my stance on the court being 'conservative' … because that isn't true, either. My complaint with the court is that you have 4 people on either side who tend to vote lockstep, including Thomas, worst of all, who just asks Scalia how to vote. The court should not be a partisan thing, and I don't think it serves the public well that it is. The reason why I tend to think 'Conservative' is that the liberals tend to stay more out of the spotlight … and the conservatives tend to upset me more. But Kelo, yes -- blame that atrocity on the libs. I don't remember being called out on it before, but I'm sure you did.
ReplyDelete