Comments on: “Cuffing Digital Detectives”

By: Advanced Colon Max

Advanced Colon Max — Sat, 08 May 2010 01:09:50 +0000

Interesting article, I thought the days of digital detectives were over but I guess they’re just starting.

By: western australia flowers

western australia flowers — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:36:59 +0000

Very nice post……Great job done.
Enjoyed reading your article.

By: Muscle Boost

Muscle Boost — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:27:38 +0000

Is this used as a stop smoking aid?

By: Cho Yung Tea

Cho Yung Tea — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 05:36:38 +0000

Interesting article on the United States vs Comprehensive drug testing. I liked the read, but I’m really tired of the government interfering with people’s private lives.

By: Irving Lugar

Irving Lugar — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 06:31:17 +0000

Dang dude you have lots of wierd bugs on your blog about parse error unexpected T String in line 15

By: 2L hell

2L hell — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 17:37:39 +0000

@ Indiana:
Do you know the name of that 7th Circuit case? Or the cite (or any other identifying info) for the district court opinion?
Thanks!

By: Erasmo Holtberg

Erasmo Holtberg — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 17:41:44 +0000

Is there any muscle-building supplement that you’d recommend? I wanna try one but I do not know which is best.

By: indiana

indiana — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:59:34 +0000

there’s case pending before the 7th Circuit that, once it’s decided, will cite this case. will be one of the few circuit decisions to outline 4th A law’s application to computer searches.

By: PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:28:45 +0000

Dave N.: PersonFromPerlock: Isn’t your post a text-book example of what is meant by an ad hominem argument?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. - Wiki

No, because Judge Woodcock's history of finding in government's favor isn't irrelevant.

By: Dave N.

Dave N. — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:30:35 +0000

PersonFromPerlock: Isn't your post a text-book example of what is meant by an ad hominem argument?

By: Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:15:55 +0000

Arthur,

I don’t think Judge Woodcock is “prepared” to do that, or at least he doesn’t say so in that opinion. Also, what is a “minor warrant”?

By: ArthurKirkland

ArthurKirkland — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:43:21 +0000

With behind-the-times judges such as Judge Woodcock prepared to open the entirety of a citizen’s informational universe to overreaching law enforcement personnel at the drop of a minor warrant, it appears the liberal-libertarian alliance will once again be called upon to safeguard constitutional protections of American citizens’ liberty.

By: mariner

mariner — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:20:02 +0000

I believe assuming that police misconduct will be the rule rather than the exception, is a good thing. We certainly have enough evidence that misconduct is widespread (if not out-and-out routine).

The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect the accused, not make things easy for cops.

By: PersonFromPorlock

PersonFromPorlock — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:13:44 +0000

Judge Woodcock famously (here in Maine, at least) declared a bag of money found in the woods by two Mainers to be drug money and forfeit because a drug dog alerted on it – not the best evidence in the world, when 90% of the US cash in circulation shows drug residue. He is not known for restraining the exercise of federal power.

By: Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » “Cuffing Digital Detectives” -- Topsy.com

Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:56:17 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eugene Volokh, Eugene Volokh. Eugene Volokh said: “Cuffing Digital Detectives”: The latest issue of National Journal has this interesting article on United State.. http://bit.ly/5h4ioI [...]

By: Orin Kerr

Orin Kerr — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:27:19 +0000

Andy,

You’re right that the “ignoring screams” analogy doesn’t work: It’s an exigent circumstances hypo, not a plain view hypo. But then plain view wouldn’t apply to tax fraud, either, as the illegality wouldn’t be immediately apparent.

By: Acai Optimum

Acai Optimum — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:41:37 +0000

I totally agree with you Andy… This issue is a privacy issue of our time… Some people barely understand this though

By: Andy McGill

Andy McGill — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:30:18 +0000

The analogy to ignoring screams is extreme. The computer won’t tell you if there is a person held hostage in the next room, but if you read the thousands of pages of data on a normal home computer, you could probably find a tax fraud or minor crime on half of them. Moreover, you could find something embarrassing on almost all of them.

This issue is probably the privacy issue of our time.