The following is from an editorial in the San Jose Mercury News:
The more we hear about President Barack Obama's attitude toward privacy, the less we like.
The latest eyebrow-raiser is the administration's argument that the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless cellphone searches. The president last week asked the Supreme Court to resolve the issue, arguing that a cellphone is no different from any other object a suspect might be carrying.
Hogwash.
This isn't the 1990s. Today's smartphones contain users' financial records, medical records, emails, texts, photographs, browser histories, information about their workplaces, who their friends are and where they go. Police who want information about suspects in the 21st century might prefer access to their smartphones over a house search.
Unfortunately, the case before the court is not a good test. It's about a Massachusetts man who, in 2007, appeared to be selling crack cocaine. Police arrested him, seized his phone and found his address and the names of people he had been calling. The information led them to his house, where they found guns, cash and drugs, leading to a conviction.
The defendant's lawyer appealed, arguing that accessing his cellphone without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. But the Obama administration argues there was little difference between looking at the cellphone and going through his address book to locate the man's home, which is allowed by the courts.
Technological advances will only make it easier for police and the government to access information that Americans reasonably expect to be private. It doesn't look like the president's going to help.
