XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies   
      
   In message    
     Jolly Roger  wrote:   
   > Savageduck  wrote:   
   >> On Jan 4, 2016, PAS wrote   
   >> (in article ):   
   >>>   
   >>> It's not safe to assume that the cops will obey the law.   
   >>   
   >> Regardless of the integrity of this “cop”, all this new California Law   
   >> does ultimately is address admissibility. If the cop/investigator (this also   
   >> applies to DA investigators) gains access to the phone with a valid court   
   >> order/warrant, any found incriminating data/evidence is then admissible for   
   >> prosecution purposes. If the cop/investigator violates the law and accesses   
   >> the phone without that Court order/warrant, all data found from the illegal   
   >> search is now inadmissible. This can lead to a failed prosecution, and   
   >> confirmation there was a dumb cop/investigator on the job.   
      
   > And that's a good thing, since their superiors will frown upon their   
   > stupidity, which puts pressure on them to avoid stepping on the privacy   
   > rights of the citizens they are supposedly sworn to protect and serve.   
      
   Nah, they'll just take a page from the FBI and their other colleagues   
   and frame some innocent people.   
      
   > So it's still unclear to me why a citizen would view this law as   
   > unfavorable or unwanted, since it dies more to protect them.   
      
   It does seem odd.   
      
   --   
   I wrote this song two hours before we met. I didn't know your name, or   
   what you looked like yet....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)