Chief Justice Roberts on Technology-Related Cases:
According to the Deseret Morning News, Chief Justice Roberts recently responded to a question at Brigham Young University about areas of law likely to be important in the future by suggesting "that technology-related cases could be the most important area of law considered by the Supreme Court over the next quarter of a century."
Emerging technologies can create new questions about old laws. For example, imaging technology exists that allows law enforcement officers to see through walls. "Is that an unlimited search and seizure?" Roberts asked.Justice Alito made a somewhat similar comment last year after judging a moot court that touched on how the Fourth Amendment applies to computer networks:
"People tend to be focused on what are the hot issues right now," he added. "Those are not the issues I think 25 years from now will be the ones people will look back on and say were significant."
What constitutes a "search and seizure" online is a critical law debate and is constantly reshaping the Fourth Amendment, he said.Hat tip: Howard.
"Now we're entering this new virtual world," Alito said, "and we have to translate the precedents and principles we have dealing with physical grounds to the world of electronic communication."
I don't know what George wrote, but I was about to say, "Hmmm... Gloating about scholarly choices, are we?" I was even going to insert one of those smileys. But I always feel self-conscious when I use them.
So it would seem odd that someone would not know why you posted this item.
Is Roberts implying he wants to revisit Scalia's thermal imaging opinion?
The search and seizure area of law becomes even more interesting when you start to wonder what happens when brain-mapping technology becomes more precise. If you are a materialist, where do you draw the line from drawing blood to test for BAC to scanning someone's thoughts? The latter is less physically intrusive, while the former has been ruled A-OK by the SC because it is passive enough not to constitute testifying against oneself.
in case orin now decides not to delete this new formulation my point is
1. it is obivous that computers and eletrnics will be a legal grwoth field but
2. often such field require young lawyers gettinginto the fieldto have undergraduate degress in techinial areas and often
3. they dont have it and want to know what other area are also growth fields....
so it does not good for the supreme court to make these trendy and obviosul statements.
i donno if its better criticing the supreme court over you on this blog...but lets see whtehr you delltete this too
"The Court described movies in some technical detail and noted their popularity, but wrote "they may be used for evil," and for this reason, "We cannot regard [the censorship of movies] as beyond the power of government."
MOM, DAD, DON'T TOUCH IT....IT'S EEEEEVIL!!!!! [/Time Bandits]
That was hilarious. Thanks for sharing it.
If I use a WiFi connection for my computer, I know that anything I transmit is out there in the electromagnetic spectrum for anyone to receive, if I use DSL, I know that someone has to tap into a fiber optic connection. Does that make a difference in reasonableness? What about the fact that eventually either way my transmissions are out there in ether land? Is any expectation under these circumstances "reasonable?"
I'm not in the mood to read the whole case, but could someone tell me why in the world the U.S. S.Ct. was opining on the Ohio Constitution?
Does anyone have a link about this new technology? I looked some for this and came up dry.