XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: ntotrr@optonline.net   
      
   "Savageduck"  wrote in message   
   news:0001HW.1C3B295109C60FFF1591703CF@news.giganews.com...   
   > On Jan 4, 2016, PAS wrote   
   > (in article ):   
   >   
   >> "Jolly Roger"wrote in message   
   >> news:devqebF4fotU3@mid.individual.net...   
   >> > On 2016-01-04, Jolly Roger wrote:   
   >> > > (PeteCresswell)wrote:   
   >> > > > Per Lewis:   
   >> > > > > > That if anyone finds his phone laying on a desk or table   
   >> > > > > > etc they   
   >> > > > > > can cause   
   >> > > > > > it to self-destruct in just five touches.   
   >> > > > >   
   >> > > > > What the fuck are you talking about>   
   >> > > >   
   >> > > > I think he is referring to phone security systems that initiate   
   >> > > > data   
   >> > > > deletion if/when somebody attempts to log on with the wrong PW.   
   >> > >   
   >> > > What does that have to do with a law that prevents cops from   
   >> > > accessing a   
   >> > > device without a court order?   
   >> >   
   >> > More to the point: Since the law prohibits cops from accessing   
   >> > devices   
   >> > without a court order, the need for wiping the device after a   
   >> > certain   
   >> > number of failed attempts is diminished rather than increased.   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   It should also lead to the prosecution of the cop(s) who illegally   
   accessed the phone.  It's one thing to determine that evidence is   
   inadmissable, but as long as people look the other way when situations   
   like this occur, they will keep occuring.   
      
   > Personally I have known cops that stupid, most DA investigators I know   
   > are   
   > far too good at what they do to go down that road.   
   > As in all walks of life stupid cops exist.   
      
   Yes, they do.  None of the cops I know don't fall into that category and   
   the vast majority I don't know don't fall into it either.   
      
   >> For example,   
   >> it's Constitutionally protected under the 1st Amendment to   
   >> photograph/record the police in public. That hasn't stopped the   
   >> police   
   >> from arresting people for doing it at worst, harassing them for doing   
   >> it   
   >> at best.   
   > As in all walks of life stupid cops exist.   
      
   People in most other walks of life haven't taken an oath to defend the   
   constitution.  Most people in other walks of life don't have the ability   
   to arrest me and make my life a living hell just because they can.  It   
   hasn't happened to me, thankfully, but it has happened to others.   
   People with that kind of power should be held to a higher standard but   
   one can argue that they aren't.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)