Why you should always encrypt your smartphone (2011)

This article is from 2011 and outdated.

> Last week, California's Supreme Court reached a controversial 5-2 decision in People v. Diaz (PDF),

I stopped reading there; since then, the U.S Supreme Court has made a different determination in Riley v. California. (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/us/supreme-court-cellphone...).

It may still be a great idea to encrypt your smart phone, but for an analysis of U.S. law at the present time, go somewhere else than this article.

This story does not take into account the recent supreme court ruling in Riley v. California that the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not apply to the information carried in cell phones. Even if your cell phone is on your person and unlocked when you are arrested, police need a search warrant to look at the data it contains.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf

I'd recommend that anyone with an interest in civil rights read Supreme Court decisions - they tend to be written in a much more understandable style than you'd expect.

This story is from 2011, and the title should be changed to reflect that; it's missing VAST changes that have happened since then.

This is from 2011. This year, in Riley[1], the Supreme Court ruled that phones can't be searched without a warrant.

That said, you still should encrypt your phone. It's easy and has little to no downside.

[1] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/riley-v-californi...