Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

fee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 155 posts

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#51

Post by cecilpl2 »

aspaceman wrote: post #46
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you are getting this definition of the purpose for warrants, but it's not based on any historical fact that I'm aware of. The way I'm aware of history, a warrant simply allows for an individual or group to take an action on behalf of the state, specifically by statement from a judge, which would have otherwise been illegal. For some individuals and groups, specifically sworn Law Enforcement officer…

The definition they use follows from the definition you use, but is dependent on the times. If you are given authority to act on a warrant by the state, then you show that to the person you're investigating so they don't shoot you for being on their property. Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Since this was before the concept of Law…

> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission.

What kind of hellish "right" is that?

You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#52

Post by seandougall »

mirimir wrote: post #40
judge2020 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Carrier updates might have some power i'm not aware of on iOS (they pop up saying "do you want to update carrier settings" with simple yes/no options), but regular iOS software updates do require connection to Apple servers and the firmware itself also has to be signed by Apple. The carrier setting thing hasn't ever been use for a jailbreak exploit AFAIK so chances are it's not a good attack vector. From your other c…

I guess that a key question is whether one can trust iOS airplane mode to fully take the phone offline. And under what circumstances does the phone leave airplane mode, and go back online. But even if that were solid, you'd still be ~unable to install apps that Apple doesn't provide. Unless you play the developer game, and I gather that's limited in app number, and how long they'll stay functional.

> whether one can trust iOS airplane mode to fully take the phone offline.

I mean, if Apple says airplane mode turns off the cell radio, that’s a falsifiable claim, so you don’t have to take it entirely on faith. It might be possible to hide it in the UI, but you can’t hide a radio signal.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#53

Post by ejz »

It’s tough to see how a court would rule. Existing privacy law cares a lot about whether what you’re doing is some kind of trespass. In this case, it would be trespass on chattel. I wouldn’t have guessed that a court would accept this reasoning for property in a public space, but that’s happened this year in Taylor v. Saginaw, the tire chalking case. The stingray is eventually going to go to SCOTUS and I’m not sure how they’ll rule. Modern conservatives don’t like trespass, but they do like law enforcement.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#54

Post by kick »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #51
aspaceman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition they use follows from the definition you use, but is dependent on the times. If you are given authority to act on a warrant by the state, then you show that to the person you're investigating so they don't shoot you for being on their property. Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Since this was before the concept of Law…

> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!

I don't agree with it, but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#55

Post by DuskStar »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #51
aspaceman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition they use follows from the definition you use, but is dependent on the times. If you are given authority to act on a warrant by the state, then you show that to the person you're investigating so they don't shoot you for being on their property. Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Since this was before the concept of Law…

> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!

You sure as hell should have the right to shoot someone who's armed and trying to get into your house, though.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#56

Post by whiddershins »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #51
aspaceman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition they use follows from the definition you use, but is dependent on the times. If you are given authority to act on a warrant by the state, then you show that to the person you're investigating so they don't shoot you for being on their property. Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Since this was before the concept of Law…

> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!

So I am sitting in my living room at 12:25 in the middle of the night in Brooklyn right now. If I look up from my phone and I see someone standing unexpectedly in my kitchen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume I am in mortal danger?

I mean, what would you think?

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#57

Post by aspaceman »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #51
aspaceman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition they use follows from the definition you use, but is dependent on the times. If you are given authority to act on a warrant by the state, then you show that to the person you're investigating so they don't shoot you for being on their property. Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. Since this was before the concept of Law…

> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!

I don't agree with the castle doctrine in a modern context but I'm talking about the 1700s, chill. Back then it made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead.

I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind warrants back then. They were a lot more important because you had to explain "What the hell are you doing here, and what gives you the right?"

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#58

Post by BurningFrog »

remote_phone wrote: post #33

Unfortunately the only way around this is to donate to the ACLU and have every single case thrown out no matter how egregious until the police learn their lesson.

I used to donate to ACLU when they were a pure civil liberties organization.

Now that they're a leftist/social justice group I have nowhere to donate.

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#59

Post by taxidump »

aspaceman wrote: post #57
cecilpl2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without the warrant, they have every right to shoot a strange person walking through their property without permission. What kind of hellish "right" is that? You should not have the right to shoot someone for merely walking on your property. That is preposterous!

I don't agree with the castle doctrine in a modern context but I'm talking about the 1700s, chill. Back then it made a lot of sense. Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead. I'm simply explaining the reasoning behind warrants back then. They were a lot more important because you had to explain "What the hell are you doing here, and what gives you th…

>Nowadays we have cops instead. You gave that power to the cops who shoot the person on your property instead.

This is not a great strategy for defence. You should defend yourself first if you are not able to get away. Or here in my state you may stand you ground and protect your life and property with deadly force. Anyone who truly feels in danger should not call the cops and wait for them to come shoot a stranger in their home...

Re: The StingRay Is Why the 4th Amendment Was Written (2017)

#60

Post by nothingtos33 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #58
remote_phone wrote: post #33

Unfortunately the only way around this is to donate to the ACLU and have every single case thrown out no matter how egregious until the police learn their lesson.

I used to donate to ACLU when they were a pure civil liberties organization. Now that they're a leftist/social justice group I have nowhere to donate.

Same here. Last I checked the 2nd amendment was still a right.
Post reply on HN