DOJ Complains About Getting a Warrant To Search Mobile Phones 178
An anonymous reader writes "The US government has entered its reply brief in the US vs. Wurie case and its argument in favor of warrantless searches of arrestees' cell phones contains some truly terrible suppositions.
The government argues that impartial technological advancements somehow favor criminals. As it sees it, the path to the recovery of evidence should not be slowed by encryption or wiping or even the minimal effort needed to obtain a warrant. From the article: 'The government agrees that times are changing but counterintuitively argues that only law enforcement is being negatively affected by this. Every argument in favor of warrantless searches contains some sort of lamentation about how tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack open these new-fangled address books and copy everything down.'"
Scumbags, the lot of them. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's almost like citizens should have their papers and effects safe from warrant-less searches. Crazy, I know.
Re: (Score:3)
You kids and your crazy, liberal ideas...
Re:Scumbags, the lot of them. (Score:4, Insightful)
wrong as slashdot beta (Score:2, Insightful)
The bill of rights shouldn't even be necessary ... if you you read the Constitution, Congress, the President, etc don't have any authority to do any of that stuff.
The 9th and 10th amendments exist because some forward thinking people realized if you have a list of things which are not allowed, sometime in the future, the government would treat that as the only things which are not allowed.
Captcha: treason.
Re:Scumbags, the lot of them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at the argument: "... some sort of lamentation about how tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack open these new-fangled address books and copy everything..."
Clearly we must give the government any and every power that they want to snoop into our lives. After all, it's not like they could just put the phones that they steal in a simple shielded Faraday box while they wait for a warrant, and then do their snooping in a Faraday cage. No, it is far better to give every scumbag that wants to snoop into your life completely free unrestricted access than to even make them go through the sham of having a warrant first, after all, they have implied that somehow tech-savvy criminals might wipe their phones.
Re:Scumbags, the lot of them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical. We're supposed to be the land of the free, and yet all these thugs care about is 'safety' (or, in reality, power), even when freedom should be considered more important in a land of truly free and brave people.
Re:Scumbags, the lot of them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Every historical democracy failed because they gave over "emergency powers" that were never given back.
The Founding Fathers, for all their warts, were a hell of a lot wiser than current politicians. They foresaw a neverending battle of generation after generation ready to fall into this trap.
Re: (Score:2)
Democracies fail because at base they are simply two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. The founders fully understood this which is why they created a republic. Eventually the Democrats showed up and became a force for "democracy" which is de-facto what we now have. We now have a democratic polity that votes to keep the good times rollin which means that with more wolves than sheep eventually you run out of sheep. Then the cannibalism starts which is very near where we are now.
I'm so glad tha
Re: (Score:2)
The tech savvy criminals will then move to another notch of security.
One example of this are self-contained apps like Divide that contain a rudimentary word processor, spreadsheet, and other tools, working on files in its space, all encrypted. Unlike Divide, the app would be decentralized, perhaps looking at incoming SMS messages for a kill signal, or even more useful, a keepalive signal. No signed text, deadman switch goes off, and the app would zero out its encryption keys.
Of course, where the real croo
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the argument: "... some sort of lamentation about how tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack open these new-fangled address books and copy everything..."
And this will always be true.
Just as assaults on the second amendment are always justified in false claims that they're aimed at stopping criminals, but have no effect but disarming the law abiding, similarly criminals will always be able to destroy their own devices, but the generally law abiding will be the one's who failed to destroy the evidence of their "crimes".
In both cases, it's the general law abiding citizen that is the real target, not the willful hardened criminal or terrorist, who won't be affe
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from apps which could do things like "If I can't ping the phone/data network for x minutes, wipe the phone" which would be activated in a Faraday cage. You might have problems if you're often in remote locations without a signal, but most places these days have at least one mobile network coverage.
Re:Scumbags, the lot of them. (Score:5, Insightful)
I urge you not to endorse this sinister measure. Humanity many times has had sad experience of superpowerful police forces...
As soon as [the police] slip out from under the firm thumb of a suspicious local tribune, they become arbitrary, merciless, a law unto themselves. They think no more of justice, but only of establishing themselves as a privileged and envied elite. They mistake the attitude of natural caution and uncertainty of the civilian population as admiration and respect, and presently they start to swagger back and forth, jingling their weapons in megalomaniac euphoria.
People thereupon become not masters, but servants. Such a police force becomes merely an aggregate of uniformed criminals, the more baneful in that their position is unchallenged and sanctioned by law. The police mentality cannot regard a human being in terms other than as an item or object to be processed as expeditiously as possible. Public convenience or dignity means nothing; police prerogatives assume the status of divine law. Submissiveness is demanded. If a police officer kills a civilian, it is a regrettable circumstance: the officer was possibly overzealous. If a civilian kills a police officer all hell breaks loose. The police foam at the mouth. All other business comes to a standstill until the perpetrator of this most dastardly act is found out. Inevitably, when apprehended, he is beaten or otherwise tortured for his intolerable presumption.
The police complain that they cannot function efficiently, that criminals escape them. Better a hundred unchecked criminals than the despotism of one unbridled police force.
Again I warn you, do not endorse this measure. If you do, I shall surely veto it."
From The Star King, by Jack Vance
This passage is notable for how demonstrably true it is. We have had exactly this problem with our local police, for many years, and we are only now beginning to get a handle on them.
Re: (Score:2)
At least that's how it seems every time I see someone point out Reagan tripling the debt in 8 years when Obama is doing less, or Obama killing with drones, while Bush merely waterboarded.
Re: (Score:2)
"You put D first. Why do you hate R?"
Because R is just as bad as D. Not looking at the R world through rose colored glasses is a prerequisite for thinking clearly.
Re: (Score:2)
It's just alphabetical order. Doesn't really matter -- "both" (ha!) parties suck beyond the ability of science to measure.
Boo Fucking Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Do some real investigative work and make your freaking case. If the only evidence you have on someone is contained within their cell phone, perhaps they aren't guilty of anything they ought to be getting arrested for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if they actually had evidence of this, they could easily get a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
someone could easily be doing all their criminal business in their home --> so every house should be searchable without a warrant on a whim?? you're from north korea or some shit like that?
Re:Boo Fucking Hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
The police are allowed to search your phone, your papers, your home, anything, once they go to a judge, present their case, and receive authorization. The person whose property is being searched has no voice in this case, and in fact isn't even necessarily aware it is being made until they are presented with the warrant. It's literally the most trivial of checks and balances, provided you actually do have a need to search that single individual's property. The goal of these warrantless search rules is to allow dragnet searches of EVERYONE's property.
Think of a warrant as similar to those "hash cash" anti-spam concepts: It's really easy to do if you have a single email that you want to send, but if you're looking to send 100k indiscriminate spam messages, it's going to slow you down.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You want the police to be able to snatch your stuff at random for no good reason? I'd like them to have to show a good reason to a judge first.
Re: (Score:2)
The AC pretty well covered it, but if you have a good enough reason to paw through their phone, you can get a warrant. This means you either don't tip your hand until you have the warrant or you arrest them on the spot while the warrant comes in (presumably that includes not letting them have their phone).
If you don't have enough evidence to make that happen, leave them alone.
Re: (Score:1)
The point was that if the only evidence of someone being a criminal is in their home they might not be a criminal. This simply is not true.
If there is evidence in the home then why shouldn't be police be allowed to search it?
Re: (Score:3)
The point was that if the only evidence of someone being a criminal is on their phone they might not be a criminal. This simply is not true.
Can you give an example? A drug dealer running a network of drug running from their phone. But no evidence outside their phone. No drugs to be found. No phones receiving the commands. No witnesses seeing drugs move. No money mocing in or out of accounts or hands.
Nope, if the only "proof" is inside a phone, then there was no crime.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they can't. Eventually they have to communicate over the network or meet someone face to face. Somehow they have to get their payment and put it somewhere where they can use it. If nothing is happening that looks like criminal activity, the police have no business looking at their phone at all. If it is, they can get a warrant, they're being passed out like candy these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone could easily do all their criminal business on a smart phone.
It's far more significant to point out that more and more regular people are doing a lot of their "business" via their smart phone (or tablet or laptop). Banks are seriously pushing electronic payment of bills, for instance. Have you ever paid a bill online? Or have you checked a credit card's balance via your portable gadget? If so, your gadget contains your account login info. That's part of what the police want. With that info, they can impersonate you to your bank or other businesses, drain your
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody call a wambulance (Score:5, Insightful)
tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack [it] open
And fire-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained in their house. What's the difference?
tech-savvy? (Score:3)
If the person really was "tech-savvy" then there would not be any implicating information on his/her phone.
Unless you're talking about petty criminals who don't have the resources to use a secondary phone that is not tied to them.
But that just means that the DOJ wants to kill the 4th Amendment to chase petty criminals. Fuck that!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:tech-savvy? (Score:4)
Do you think the sort of person who would have evidence of a serious crime on their phone would hesitate for a moment to present a fake ID to the ever vigilant and eagle eyed clerk at the slurp and gulp? Or just steal one?
Re: (Score:2)
Why, when you can buy a "tourist SIM" for the USA when in Europe. Bought with cash in a foreign country which provides me unlimited calls & over a Gig of data. Totally untraceable.
Re: (Score:2)
They're complaining about having to get a warrant at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Digital or not, it's someone's property. Get over yourself and get a warrant to search/seize it.
tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack [it] open
And fire-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained in their house. What's the difference?
You can send in a SWAT team on a "no knock" warrant if you think a suspect might destroy physical evidence inside a house.
Fine. Get a fucking "no knock" WARRANT and seize the phone before they wipe it.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahhh, yes, a WARRANT! That seems like a good idea. Perhaps they should get one for the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the claymore mine inside the front door is for.
We're here to "help" you! (Score:3, Interesting)
We're here to "help" you! Now get down on the floor before we tazer your ass. Papers please! No, no, no. This would be more like, "life history, all data relating to everything you do ever, please!"
Re:We're here to "help" you! (Score:5, Interesting)
Tazer? You must be a city boy. Out here in the county, the Sheriff's office gets the wrong address for a non-violent drug offender, activates the SWAT team, kicks down your door, shoots your dogs instantly whether or not they're a threat (read the policies out there; they did it to a mayor even), and then throws you on the floor and hog ties you and your wife in front of your kids.
Then they figure out they have the wrong address.
But you will still stay down, fool.. and you will comply.
Or else.
Preface: I live in the sticks on seven acres with over-zealous law enforcement (ironically many of whom I talk with at the target range) and the occasional meth head.
And this kids, is why I'm probably on a list. I've got el-cheapo 360 degree camera coverage (including IR spectrum for night) hooked to a DVR which is also periodically (as in every ten minutes) backed up to an off-site location. I've also got motion sensor flood lights on every side of the house and garage. The floods and the DVR system are UPS backed. The locations of the cameras, while not being necessarily hidden, are not immediately obvious.
My wife and I are both professionals with no kids, and generally like to be left the hell alone, so throughout the house (and basement, and garage) there are one of two types of weapons accessible: Smith and Wesson 686+ 7 shot .357 revolvers and Mossberg Persuaders in 12 gauge. Yes, we have more than one of each. It was an initial purchase that we made when we moved to the middle of nowhere, and the weapons are all hidden. If worse comes to worst and body armor is involved, in the gun safe is an AR-15 platform loaded up with the best 6.8mm SPC I can buy (unless they're wearing ceramic plates, I'll own em like a two dollar whore)
We're both recreational shooters, have had considerable training (and indeed are going to Front Sight next year), and put rounds down range every month, if not every week as a hobby.
I'm a software engineer who works from home (and former soldier), and she's a school teacher (and farm girl). We both lament that this mentality is needed, but here in Appalachia it's kind of like considering George Bush's presidency: no move too stupid.
- signed: A Gun Totin' Working Class Agnostic Center-Left Democrat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the land of the free. Sounds more like you're prepping for war.
At some point I'd like to travel the US from coast to coast to see the beautiful country side. Apart from not feeling like being irradiated and/or violated at the border, posts like this make me postpone any travel to the US more or less permanently.
Re: (Score:2)
So was your original plan to invade his home on your coast-to-coast tour? Otherwise, how would what happens inside his home affect your vacation?
I don't know what definition of "free" you're using, but in a "land of the free" people are free to prep for whatever they want without being forced to conform to your personal life choices...
Or are you one of those people who wouldn't visit a country that allows gay marriage because you don't want to be forced into a gay marriage? You really need to get your irrat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Firstly, I'm a law abiding citizen.
The ideal situation is that I throw my dogs in the glassed in shower in my bathroom just off of my bedroom and calmly come out and ask 'what the fuck'. The whole point of motion sensors on the flood lights is that I'll see them coming. If they've got a warrant, come on in boys and look around. Just don't shoot anybody or anything.
However, if it comes down to it I'll blow rounds through anybody wrongfully coming into my house. If they shoot my wife or anybody dear to me, th
Re:We're here to "help" you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Violent crime is plummeting yet the state is escalating.
And because of research into lead and such, it looks like it was unrelated to any acts by the police state that resulted in the crime drop.
Re:We're here to "help" you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No knock should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse, some time back someone got shot and killed because he was holding a TV remote control when the cops busted down his door. The cops did apologize and did note that they almost were at the right address and it did almost look like a gun so it was all good.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
lamentation about how tech-savvy criminals will be able to cover up or destroy evidence contained on their phones before the police can crack open these new-fangled address books and copy everything down.
A warrant has nothing to do with this capability. If the perp sees you coming and wipes the phone*, the presence of a warrant has no effect on this. On the other hand, if you can secure the phone prior to the wipe, why can't you put it in an evidence bag, ask a judge for a warrant and then read it.
*IANAL, but it is my understanding that the existence of a warrant has little bearing on a charge of destroying evidence.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blackberries have a nice security feature that I wish iOS and Android had:
If the device does not get a cellular signal (when it checks if it was told to erase itself), after x amount of time, it will erase itself automatically.
No other device, or app has this functionality. It sounds like paranoia, but it would come into handy, especially if there is sensitive data on the device.
I wouldn't even need to bother with a Faraday cage. I'd just pull the SIM card and call the deed done. Unless the device can ge
Re: (Score:2)
So? Put your data-extraction center in its own Faraday cage. Big deal, so there's a bit more chicken mesh in the walls. Or just disconnect the antenna. If you're dealing with actual tech-savvy criminals they're presumably using encryption, so you'll want to pull the storage anyway and access it from a more capable machine without any data-eating trojans on it.
Re: (Score:2)
What's odd is that they can already get a warrant for SMSs, call records, call recordings and such from the phone. So why would they need the instant access to the device, when they can get it slow and legal?
Re: (Score:1)
Is this some kind of legal entanglement? That is, criminals are immediately alerted on some kind of quantum level that the police have ascertained they are holding relevant evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
And if the officer is not in possession of the phone, then having or not a warrant has exactly zero impact on the suspect's ability to wipe the phone. The only thing that prevents that is physical possession of the phone by the officer. Not having a warrant does not prevent the officer from taking the phone into evidence, it just stops them from searching it until a warrant is granted. So no, it most certainly does not.
Re: (Score:2)
The moment an officer realizes there's evidence in a home is often the exact same moment the perp realizes they need to get rid of said evidence. If the officer has to go get a warrant, that gives the suspect plenty of time to destroy the evidence.
Yeah, phone is really the only noun that fits in that hypothesis, so their point for a special case is totally justified
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then pull the SIM card before you put it in the evidence bag. No SIM card means no remote wipe. And install a WiFi blocker in the police evidence room to prevent it callling home via WiFi.
Re: (Score:3)
What we're talking about here is a tradeoff between
(1) LEO's rooting through your phone because they had a gun and body armor and took it from you.
vs.
(2) Your information being secure until said LEO can compellingly convince a judge to give them permission to search your effects.
Maybe these hyper tech savvy criminals are a threat to the populace a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So toss the phone in a faraday cage (aka metal box) to prevent all wireless communication.
When we let central government metastasize... (Score:2)
...we turn loose a process that works like the vascularization of a tumor. As soon as you let power flow to the center, and let it accumulate more power for the sake of power, abominations like this are going to keep happening. The NSA revelations were one step along this path. This story is another. Let's just declare Eric Holder il Duce and be done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah. That already happened when the previous administration argued the Great Writ was not a right.
Time to realize this trend has nothing to do with the person in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Time to realize that Democrats and Republicans are two faces of the same beast.
tl;dr (Score:5, Insightful)
tl;dr
DoJ complains about 4th Amendment - wants it repealed.
Re: (Score:2)
The government's barely respected the 4th Amendment for a very long time now.
The end of civil rights (Score:2)
They told me this would happen if I voted for President McCain. And they were right!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compaining while walking into your home warrentles (Score:1)
By the end of the century they will be complaining because people are putting masking tape over legally required video to police camera's in every room of your house.
These people have no sense. The federal government is amoral wanton killing machine with blood and guts of your fore-fathers lubing it's gears.. .. your son! Throw him in right there.."
And now those gears are getting slow - so throw some more 'lube' in there to keep it moving - "that kid there
When you pay your taxes - you put a bullet into a sm
Perjury (Score:1)
From the article: 'The government agrees that times are changing but counterintuitively argues that only law enforcement is being negatively affected by this.
Is not deliberately lying to a court considered perjury? Or are the courts deliberately looking the other way because it is law enforcement doing the lying? They know they are lying and I would be surprised if the courts didn't know they are lying.
If they have enough evidence to arrest someone, they already have their phone in the evidence locker. It should not be an "undue burden" to actually get a warrant and make things legal. This is as much about police being lazy as it is about "tech savy criminals".
Re: (Score:2)
> Or are the courts deliberately looking the other way because it is law enforcement doing the lying? They know they are lying and I would be surprised if the courts didn't know they are lying.
Historically, yes, the courts err on the side of law enforcement when reviewing testimony. The history of both the police and of the courts is filled with examples of this: it's an _inevitable_ part of the social and emotional bonds they both feel from being in the same business. It doesn't require planning or cons
personal searches for weapons (Score:2)
Phones dont fall into this category, so should have court warrents.
When everyone is treated like a criminal... (Score:3)
... It pays to protect yourself like a criminal.
Lock your tech down so that when they come they have to say pretty please to get access.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they have to use a $5 wrench. Either one.
http://xkcd.com/538/
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how long they torture you before they even ask you the password.
If they take off your eye lids and remove every other finger from your hands... Then ask you for the password... you might just give them the real password because you're too horrified not to...
Its crude... but psychopaths have found it effective for thousands of years.
Police State (Score:2)
Only in a police state is the job of a policeman easy. Do you want to live in a police state? I don't.
By this logic fire should have been banned (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's time for an Article 5 Constitutional Convention: http://www.foavc.org/
Wouldn't it be easier to blow-up the Senate and Congress? "Hi my name is Martha Washington. "
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but that's illegal. Those sneaky bastards thought of everything!
Re: (Score:2)
It's time for an Article 5 Constitutional Convention: http://www.foavc.org/ [foavc.org]
Wouldn't it be easier to blow-up the Senate and Congress? "Hi my name is Martha Washington. "
The ones who could do that won't come anywhere near Earth until country-western music is eradicated here. That causes them to experience spontaneous cerebral detonation. (Ack-ackackack!)
Re: (Score:2)
All they would do is try to amend away the 2nd.
You are aware that this story is about the 4th Amendment, right? Or are you unfamiliar with any part of the Constitution other than the 2nd Amendment?
Re: (Score:1)
He's saying it would be co-opted by people trying to attack the 2nd Amendment, and in the process the whole thing would be rendered moot.
Re: (Score:2)
An Article 5 convention just proposes amendments. They still have to be ratified by the states.
Re:All Your Constitutional Rights are Belong to US (Score:4, Interesting)
You are aware that the constitution has been amended 10 times in the last century, right? Most recently in 1992, when laws effecting congressional salaries were delayed from taking effect until after the next election. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org] ) And only once was a previous amendment touched: when the 21st repealed the 18th (prohibition).
Granted a national convention has never actually been called, but that's largely because any time state support for an amendment approaches the point where it became likely that a national convention could be called (3/4 of states), the national congress has instead proposed a similar amendment themselves. Presumably to at least keep the specific wording under their own control rather than risk losing any more power than necessary to the state legislatures.
And frankly it seems silly to worry that powerful interests will buy up the state legislatures in order to allow a national convention to craft a suitably seedy amendment - far easier to buy up the much smaller national congress to do the exact same thing without all the extra fanfare and beuracratic complexity. You'd still have to buy up the state legislatures to get it passed, but buying a single vote is likely far cheaper and more reliable than getting an appropriately worded amendment agreed through such a large group.
Re:All Your Constitutional Rights are Belong to US (Score:4, Informative)
2/3 of the States.
It takes 3/4 to ratify the amendment, but only 2/3 to call a Constitutional Convention.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite so, I misread that part.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at how easily Congress got around the 27th Amendment by automating the raises and calling them cost of living raises. That is the real problem, next to no Amendments are actually followed, speech has been redefined to allow Congress to ban some types of speech, what are Arms is open to debate, whether papers include electronic copies and so on.
Of interest is the Corwin Amendment, which actually banned some future amendments
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"buy up state legislatures" ... where have you been? did you miss the RNC's specific strategy of gaining republican control of state legislatures specifically for the purpose of affecting national elections (redistricting, ALEC legislation, etc)
oh and speaking of ALEC....which is how businesses get friendly legislations into states, til a majority concensus happens, and then a federal version appears....
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't that get messy?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It is. You just have to think further ahead.
The perfect crime is not one that never gets solved. It's one that is easy to solve. And with all the technical gadgetry at your disposal, delivering a believable patsy has never been easier.
Re: (Score:2)
The perfect crime is not one that never gets solved. It's one that is easy to solve.
It's one that isn't recognized as a crime.
Re: (Score:1)
Either way works though.
Re: (Score:2)
they use that to justify the illegal search that allowed them to search through the phone in the first place. Technically wiping it could be destruction of evidence, but in reality its civil disobedience
Civil disobedience? Nah.
The question is whether searching a cell phone is different from searching a wallet or car after the driver has been arrested. I don't think they're arguing for searching the phone before an arrest and without a warrant. But after an arrest, the phone has been impounded; they should turn it off and get a warrant. Anyone sophisticated enough to wipe it at that point is on their own.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a felling that the cops will win the warrantless search argument
Quite likely. And we might point out that this means they'll have instant warrantless access to all your account information, including your bank accounts, so they'll be easily able to impersonate you and drain your bank accounts.
Let's see a show of hands: How many people here access their bank accounts from their "phones" or other personal computers? Do you pay bills online? Do you check your credit cards' info online? If so, a "warrantless search will give all that access to everyone in the police