[anon(51467)]

Bottom line for me is this. If I haven't done anything wrong then I will do what is required to prove it.

But that is the point: you do not have to prove your innocence, the burden is on them to prove your guilt, or at least that is what the Constitution says.

And so what if you text and drive, people do things while driving all the time that distracts them like having a conversation, changing the radio station, looking out the side windows, applying makeup, reading a newspaper, drinking coffee, sitting so slouched down they cannot possibly see the road, grabbing a Marlborough, etc. Texting and driving should be treated no differently than any other distraction, yet it is. We are so screwed up.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[T�nis]

I am not fine with them looking at any of my information, whether they think I've done something wrong or not. I won't help them gather evidence and/or build a case against me even if I "deserve" it. The first step in thwarting them is owning a secure device -- a BlackBerry.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[SRR500]

But that is the point: you do not have to prove your innocence, the burden is on them to prove your guilt, or at least that is what the Constitution says.

You are correct that burden of proof is theirs. Once the case goes to court.

If I can take away their ability to prove any wrong doing on my part by giving them my phone then I will and I'll even tie a bow around it.

If they think they need to search it "just because they can" and "just to check and see what they might be able to find" then no I won't give up my data without a fight.

It sounds like the device in the article might be a newer and/or fancier version than the one my friend has used.

I agree with the post above. Call logs are one thing but actual data is something else.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[T�nis]

If I can take away their ability to prove any wrong doing on my part by giving them my phone then I will and I'll even tie a bow around it ...

If I can take away their ability to prove any wrong doing on my part by encrypting data, not consenting to or helping in a search, and/or doing a security wipe, I will.

Devices that can be used to spy on you:

Cellebrite - Mobile Forensics and Data transfer solutions - Mobile Forensic Products

Cellebrite - Mobile Forensics and Data transfer solutions - UFED Ruggedized

A description of one of the device's capabilities:

"Data is extracted onto a USB flash drive or SD card which is organized into clear and concise reports. The data can easily be exported to the leading data mining and link analysis tools, providing the fastest, most effective data acquisition and analysis system available."

and

"Complete extraction of mobile phone data - Contacts, SMS Messages, pictures, videos, call logs (dialed, received, missed), ESN/IMEI, audio files, and deleted SMS/Call History from the SIM/USIM. SIM ID cloning via built in SIM reader - Extract phone data when the SIM Card is PIN locked or when the SIM is not available. Network connection is neutralized while handset is extracted, meanwhile making the phone is invisible to the network. Memory Dump - Complete dump of phone file system for select handsets, providing the ability to extract otherwise inaccessible files, and user passwords."

A password is not enough! Encrypt your data if you don't want it in the hands of someone else for whatever reason!
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[iN8ter]

I really don't think the cops care about the data on your phone unless it's pertinent to the situation.

If they stop you for breaking the texting while driving laws then they have the probable cause to search your phone. Just like if they stop you for suspected drunk driving then they should give you a field sobriety test. These actions serve one of two purposes. One to prove that you broke the law or two to prove that you didn't.

In which case it's trivial for them to get the info they need. They can just sopoena them from your cell carrier. The carrier can tell them when the texts were sent and recieved (as well as calls, and you can see if someone was web surfing by how much data was used in that time span as well). They don't need the data. What you sent in that instance is irrelevant. They just need to prove that you were sending stuff or reading stuff while behind the wheel.

They won't be interested in anything else on the phone unless its full of child porn or appointments with drug dealers etc.

Bottom line for me is this. If I haven't done anything wrong then I will do what is required to prove it.

Thanks to all the officers out there for doing their best to keep the roads as safe as possible.

Having said all of this, I also do not agree that a phone search should be part of a routine traffic stop. If I'm pulled over for a broken tail light there is NO reason for me to give up my phone for a search.

There seems to be a lot of sides and opinions to this issue. Definitely makes for good reading and discussion.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Agree.

If you've been doing something that would force you to security wipe your phone before it's searched and refuse to give it over chances are they already know enough to arrest you and will likely have a search warrant in hand when they pull you over :P

[editionfws]

This is a good reason to keep a spare phone in the car, and keep it charged. "Let me see your phone!" No problem!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[T�nis]

This is a good reason to keep a spare phone in the car, and keep it charged. "Let me see your phone!" No problem!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I love it! Great idea!



Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[mustangv8]

That's what the illegally passed patriot act was for. For invading public taxpayers business.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Danf]

The idea that these devices are being used on routine traffic stops is absurd. And event he ACLU admits they have no information or evidence that they are being used in that manner. they are just "Concerned".

Those devices cost several thousand dollars and you can bet they are not part of routine equipment in a patrol car. I know and officer that uses such a device. he works for a dept. with several hundred officers and they have ONE such device and it is used in criminal investigations not traffic stops.

Michigan State police issued a press release on the issue after the ACLU complained about the cost of the data they wanted.

Here is the MSP response.

Michigan State Police hit back at ACLU on data collection devices | Government Security News

MSP states,

The MSP only uses the DEDs if a search warrant is obtained or if the person possessing the mobile device gives consent.

[T�nis]

"The MSP only uses the DEDs if a search warrant is obtained or if the person possessing the mobile device gives consent."

Then why was it going to cost a half million dollars to give the ACLU the information it was requesting?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[T�nis]

Hey, if the police have nothing to hide, they should be a bit more forthcoming in providing the requested information.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Danf]

"The MSP only uses the DEDs if a search warrant is obtained or if the person possessing the mobile device gives consent."

Then why was it going to cost a half million dollars to give the ACLU the information it was requesting?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

Probably because what they are requesting is not something that is not easly retrieved or not even in the database they use.

People seem to have this idea that police have this all encompassing database and all they have to do it push a button to retrieve it.

if it is not something they keep track of in their database software then your talking manual search. then after it is printed out someone has to go through every single page and redact personal info which the police cannot release.

[papped]

Identity theft would be a much larger problem than law enforcement... If police can get a hold of it, so can other people.

[Wolf-Strong]

im actually curious if that device can bypass BB's password and encryption anyways.

Many wireless stores use CellBrites, and I can tell you right now, while they can pull LOTS of information, one device that they can not bypass passwords on are Blackberries. If you do not have a password, you can not access a BB. Simple non-smartphones, most Android and iPhones are completely open though. Just another testament to the security of BB, that is if you remember to utilize the security features.

[anon(51467)]

That's what the illegally passed patriot act was for. For invading public taxpayers business.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

How was it "illegally passed"? It passed as a law and nobody has yet to come forward and prove it was misused or violated anyone's rights. Also, if you read up on it, it was specifically for looking into suspected people making overseaes calls to certain regions.

Funny thing how the current administration thought the patriot act was so bad, yet they have done nothing to repeal it. Perhaps it has been useful in preventing another 9/11 event.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com