PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE (HANDOUT) AND RESPOND TO FOLLOWING PROMPTS
1. What was the issue in the Riley case?
2. Do you agree with the ruling - why or why not?
3. What do you think about this - Should students be punished for criticizing teachers on Facebook?
Please elaborate with your answers- do not just say yes or no - explain your opinion
4. How are your digital devices "different" from the original intent of the framers of the constitution?
5. Look at the Digital Docket section -
Then
I. Explain the issues facing (possibly) the Supreme Court when hearing these cases -
What rights are being questioned in ALL three of the cases -
Which Amendments too??
II. Take a side in EACH of the THREE CASES - YOU ARE THE JUDGE
HOW WOULD YOU RULE? USE THE RIGHT AMENDMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR RULING (READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS)
6. Why have "warrantless" searches been allowed in many cases?
7. Why has the court NOT allowed this exception for cellphones?
8. What circumstances might allow for warrantless searches?
9. What are THREE IMPLICATIONS the 9-0 ruling in the Riley case will have in America today and onward?
10. What is another example where new technology has been excluded without a warrant?
11. What was the important ruling by the Europeans when it comes to digital information?
12. After reading this article - think about the current state of US foreign affairs - we are trying to stop terrorist organizations like ISIS, ISIL and many other groups that use digital media sources, cellphones and the internet with the intent of hurting people they don't like (US included)
Should we tie the "digital search" hands of our law enforcement and military with court rulings?
Why or why not - what are the implications?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. Riley did not give the police men permission or get a warrant from a judge to search someone's phone.
ReplyDelete2.I disagree with the ruling because the cops did not get permission from Riley.
3.No students should not because social media is a place to express how you feel of something or someone.
4.With our digital device, you can do anything with a click of a button. The framers you have to find the person you are looking for to search them.
I. People are getting bad reviews; the rights that were mentioned was "the right to speak anonymously over the internet".
II. I would agree with the rule because in the admendments, warrants are not allowed to check you for no reason unless you are on base or any place where it is allowed.
6.Because they have the rights to do it if they are in a certain area that allows warrant less searches.
7.Because a lot of people have smart phones.
8.If they see something suspicious on the victim.
10. Research institute.
11.The ruling doesn't apply to search engines outside Europe, and the links will still be available on Google in the U.S.
12.Yes and no. The reason why I said yes is because the law enforcement and military can detect terrorist activities and no because that is our privacy.
1.Riley was pulled over and the police searched his phone without a warrant
ReplyDelete2. They should be allowed to search without a warrant
3. No, the 1st amendment protects students to have the right to say whatever they want
4. You can access anyone,anything, anywhere
5. Right to a warrant, right to freedom of speech. The 1st and 4th ammendment
5. Because they have solid proof already
6. Because cellphones are digital and hold very personal things
7. Good suspicion
8. That people will take advantage of the time it takes to get a warrant and remove anything they want
9. When the police searched Facebook files of someone
10. The ruling only applies within Europe
11. Yes because protecting thousands is more important than violating one small right
1. police took a thug's phone
ReplyDelete2. it depends on what the police find in the car in my opinion
3. students should not be criticized for criticizing teachers on facebook because it's none of the teachers' businesses
4. my digital devices can spread information extremely quickly
5.
I.Congress and the Supreme Court could pass this, but the president could veto it, thus defeating the purpose of the law.
II. I think that anonymous online reviews and criticizing teachers outside of school should be allowed because of freedom of speech. For online reviews, footage of the product should also be allowed because of fair use. This is something many companies overlook when filing a copyright strike on YouTubers who review products like TV Shows, Movies, and Video Games. But cyberbullying should be illegal because it can drive people to suicide, which could be considered involuntary manslaughter.
6. the police found evidence in some cases
7. because it is your right to not let people search you without a warrant
8. evidence of crime and/or violence being found in possession of the defendant
9. police might be more likely to search without a warrant, “privacy comes at a cost,” can get warrants from e-mails
10. search of facebook, e-mails, twitter, etc.
11. Europe asked if people have the right to erase themselves from the internet
12. we could always use the internet to track them down because they use the internet so often to spread their messages
1. he was pulled over because his car registration had expired and theyfound two loaded guns and text messages proving he was associated with a local gang.
ReplyDelete2. i agree because even if they didn't pull him over they would have arrested him later because he would have killed someone with the guns.
3 No, because the students probably says the same things in real life and what someone does is the own business she it isn't fair.
4. now a days we don't use digital devices for their orignial intent we use it for more negative reasons such as bullying and hacking.
I. There are rights for the internet suck as the right to speak anonymously over the internet and for this reason people are getting bad reviews of the rights.
II I wouldn't agree with this rule because if the only evidence they have is one their phone then more people could get hurt in the time it takes to get a warrent
6 It is not a law that you can't checks someones phone without a warrent
7 almost everyone now a days has a smart phone and there is no one without one
8. is someone is acting suspicious then they have probable causes to check the criminal
9.
10. facebook, research institutes, twitter and other social media sites
11. it doesn't apply to anyone outside of europe so say if someone in america wanted to check the links they could. and if someone used a us search engine they could still check it in europe.
12. no because a person's private life is their private life.
1. When the police looked on Riley’s phone to link him to the shooting, the lawyer said that the police need a search warrant to go through his phone.
ReplyDelete2. No, because it’s the same as searching someones car for drugs when pulled over
3. I think it is wrong, because talking about a teacher on facebook, is almost the same as talking about them in a regular conversation with someone else
4. Back then technology could not be carried around with information being hidden
5. The issue with them was how cyber bullying cooperates with the 1st Amendment. I think that Yelp is right for not releasing the real names of the users, cyber bullying should be stopped, but not enforced as a law, and that criticizing a teacher is not a problem (unless it’s threatening for obvious reasons)
6. Because they were let go after the person who was accused was persecuted
7. Because “Privacy comes at a cost”
8. Time ticking bomb, kidnapped child, robbery
9. Law enforcement can use a warrant within 15 minutes by email, A warrantless search could be permitted under life threatening situations, Police will need warrants for not only cell phones but, tablets and laptops.
10. Tablets and Laptops need a warrant to be searched
11. Google and other search engines must consider individual request to remove links that they say contain embarrassing or negative information or otherwise infringe on their privacy
12. No, because the court has many different rulings for when it comes to the military.
1. When he got pulled over they found two loaded gun in his car. They searched his phone without a warrant in the hopes of linking him to the shooting.
ReplyDelete2. No, because i don't think someone should get searched without a warrant. It isnt fair and goes against our rights.
3. No, our rights says we have the freedom of speech.
4. There a different ways of getting information now.
5.
I : Some parts of the law could agree and try to pass this and others can disagree and say no and veto it so the law gets demolished.
II : Cyber bullying shouldn't be allowed, but i do think we have the rights to say what we want with our freedom of speech.
6.against the law to check someones phone without a warrant.
7. Because we have rights, and our rights say we have to have a warrant to get searched.
8. If something is suspicious.
9.
10. All electronics need a warrant to be searched.
11.
12. no because its someones own bussiness.
1. What was the issue in the Riley case?
ReplyDeleteCan law enforcement search a cell phone under the fourth amendment that is seized during an arrest.
2. Do you agree with the ruling - why or why not?
I honestly still think he should be imprisoned because he was linked to a murder and shootings. Even if the police abused his 4th amendment right justice still needs to be served.
3. What do you think about this - Should students be punished for criticizing teachers on Facebook?
I think students should be punished because it is the same thing as saying it to the teachers face but digitally. Even if it is on social media you should think about the repercussions before you post things on social media.
4. How are your digital devices "different" from the original intent of the framers of the constitution? The fourth amendment is saying “each man’s home is his castle” secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. A digital device is different because it is not in your home and or property. The framers of the constitution did not think about digital devices back in the day (they did not have any) there only intent was the persons property and home.
5. Look at the Digital Docket section -
Then
I. Explain the issues facing (possibly) the Supreme Court when hearing these cases -
What rights are being questioned in ALL three of the cases -
The rights being question are freedom of speech and rights against search and seizure..
Which Amendments too?? T
he amendments include the 4th amendment, and the 8th Amendment.
II. Take a side in EACH of the THREE CASES - YOU ARE THE JUDGE
HOW WOULD YOU RULE? USE THE RIGHT AMENDMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR RULING (READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS).
For the cyberbullying i would let the person of because it is freedom of speech unless the child/person committed suicide(1st Amendment). Also with criticizing teachers out of school no punishment should be made because it is freedom of speech. This is wrong but no major disciplinary action should be taken. And the case with the cellphone linked to murders and shootings, his 4th amendment was taken from him. He should still be punished but given 25 years with parole in 20, because of the homicide.
6. Why have "warrantless" searches been allowed in many cases? There has been much evidence or they see something that is suspicious, they have to have a great reason to search with a warrant.
7. Why has the court NOT allowed this exception for cellphones?
The court has not allowed this exception for cellphones because there's a lot of personal information of a cell phone.
8. What circumstances might allow for warrantless searches? If there was a murder and there was blood on the suspects hand.
9. What are THREE IMPLICATIONS the 9-0 ruling in the Riley case will have in America today and onward? 1. Warrants need to be taken while searching digital devices. 2. Digital devices are to be treated like property. 3. Search of social media sites.
10. What is another example where new technology has been excluded without a warrant?
Searching of tape recorders and laptops.
11. What was the important ruling by the Europeans when it comes to digital information?
The ruling only applies the the people who live in europe
12. After reading this article - think about the current state of US foreign affairs - we are trying to stop terrorist organizations like ISIS, ISIL and many other groups that use digital media sources, cell phones and the internet with the intent of hurting people they don't like (US included)
Should we tie the "digital search" hands of our law enforcement and military with court rulings? I believe we should because it would only be fair.
If we allow a warrant to search a digital device in the U.S. I believe we should include that in foreign affairs also.
1. What was the issue in the Riley case? The police used pictures and texts from his phone to link him to another crime and punished him for it.
ReplyDelete2. Do you agree with the ruling - why or why not? I agree with this ruling because no matter how the evidence was found, he still was involved in a shooting and should be punished accordingly.
3. What do you think about this - Should students be punished for criticizing teachers on Facebook?
Please elaborate with your answers- do not just say yes or no - explain your opinion. I think that students should not be punished for criticizing teachers on facebook. Obviously what you say on the internet is not private, but still criticizing a teacher is exercising your freedom of speech. If someone wants to bad mouth a teacher on their own time, they should be allowed to do that, as long as it is not interfering with learning inside the classroom.
4. How are your digital devices "different" from the original intent of the framers of the constitution? Search and Seizure applied to British soldiers coming into the colonists house, not police officers taking cell phones.
5. Look at the Digital Docket section -
Then
I. Explain the issues facing (possibly) the Supreme Court when hearing these cases - Anonymous reviews, cyberbullying, and student free speech
What rights are being questioned in ALL three of the cases - Freedom of speech
Which Amendments too?? First and fourth
II. Take a side in EACH of the THREE CASES - YOU ARE THE JUDGE
HOW WOULD YOU RULE? USE THE RIGHT AMENDMENTS TO SUPPORT YOUR RULING (READ THE BILL OF RIGHTS)
6. Why have "warrantless" searches been allowed in many cases? To “protect” the officers when using reasonable suspicion
7. Why has the court NOT allowed this exception for cellphones? Just because cell phones hold tons of information on a person does not mean it shouldn’t be affected by the 4th amendment.
8. What circumstances might allow for warrantless searches? Only in time-sensitive emergencies
9. What are THREE IMPLICATIONS the 9-0 ruling in the Riley case will have in America today and onward?
It will be much harder for a police officer to search your phone
Police officers need warrants before they take a digital device
More digital rights laws should be looked at and passed
10. What is another example where new technology has been excluded without a warrant? Tablets and laptops
11. What was the important ruling by the Europeans when it comes to digital information? The right to be forgotten
12. After reading this article - think about the current state of US foreign affairs - we are trying to stop terrorist organizations like ISIS, ISIL and many other groups that use digital media sources, cellphones and the internet with the intent of hurting people they don't like (US included)
Should we tie the "digital search" hands of our law enforcement and military with court rulings? Yes
Why or why not - what are the implications? If someone searches for terrorist things, the government should be able to track certain keywords to try to spot ISIS and some criminals.