41–50 of 135 posts
Sounds a lot like 'parallel construction'.
Yeah seems like that's quite explicitly the goal. The question is, what means or method are they trying to hide and is it hyper illegal or just something they don't want to be pubic knowledge?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The Constitution was meant to be permanently fixed and extremely literal about only the technology available from centuries ago, it was not meant to describe general concepts nor intended to be updated to ensure those same rights are retained along with changes in society. /s? I can't tell because people unironically use the same reasoning to make the "2nd amendment only apply to muskets" argument.
That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard. The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again. Similarly the military landscape looks very different as well such that there's a very different risk of foreign armies taking ground and citizens everywhere needing to b…
They keep getting arrested because some fed informants show up and convince them to kidnap a governor of whatever before they can become "Well regulated".
This is like asking Google why they banned your account for fraud. Secrecy is important for slowing down bad actors.
the example at the top of the article isn’t exactly the best example to show people why this software shouldn’t be allowed. they could go to the liquor store, and ask them to pull cameras, and with a warrant if needed. it just seems more powerful to say this software is useless and wasting taxpayer money. but also, who is supplying location data to tangles? saying the ‘dark web’ is not helpful or informational, and h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard. The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again. Similarly the military landscape looks very different as well such that there's a very different risk of foreign armies taking ground and citizens everywhere needing to b…
The State Guards are the militias For example the Texas Guard: https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard Not that I’d ever want them near anything useful but that’s the answer
https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard
;) they are NOT the National Guard. They are the militia of Texas. (Texas State Guard aka TXSG). Subordinate to the state gov, only.
However TX considers it more complicated than that:
The Organized Militia: Consisting of the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard.
The Unorganized Militia: This consists of all "able-bodied" residents of the state who are at least 18 but under 45 years of age and are not members of the organized militia.
the example at the top of the article isn’t exactly the best example to show people why this software shouldn’t be allowed. they could go to the liquor store, and ask them to pull cameras, and with a warrant if needed. it just seems more powerful to say this software is useless and wasting taxpayer money. but also, who is supplying location data to tangles? saying the ‘dark web’ is not helpful or informational, and h…
If it's on the dark web isn't it also possible that it's hacked phone records? Seems like a nice way to bypass getting a warrant. Step 1, make sure hackers know you're in the market for phone company data. Step 2, hackers do their thing and sell it on the dark web. Step 3, police use intermediate tool like Tangles to "obtain probably cause" and "verify reasonable suspicion" based on the hacked records and focus their…
Agree that using hacked sources is unethical and shouldn’t be done, but is there an actual law against law enforcement using hacked data? reporters can legally publish hacked sources.
Why are they comfortable saying this? > Generally, Boyd said his office uses the software to find “avenues for obtaining probable cause” or “to verify reasonable suspicion that you already have”—not as a basis by itself to make arrests. As if that's not a massive violation of our rights in and of itself. This is my fundamental problem with the internet. As much as stories like these gain traction, as many millions of…
> Why are they comfortable saying this? They receive recognition for the results. Phone data was used in a large fraction of the cases against rioters in the 2021 capital attack. The Powers That Be were grateful that law enforcement were able to use phone data to either initially identify attackers or corroborate other evidence, and ultimately put people in prison. The justice system makes cases with this every day,…
What it does become is a data point in an evidential submission that can strengthen a case that could otherwise be argued back as a bit flaky. It's similar to DNA evidence in that it's not actually 100% reliable nor is the data handled forensically at every stage of collection, but it's treated as if it is.
I think it's weighted too heavily in evidence and should not be used as a fine-toothed comb to sweep for "evidence" when it can be so easily tainted or faked. At the same time, I'd love to see the current members of the pushback against ICE using this data fallacy against future prosecutions. "Yeah, I was at home, look" and actually it's just a replay of a touch or face ID login running from a packaged emulator, or whatever signature activities meet the evidential requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard. The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again. Similarly the military landscape looks very different as well such that there's a very different risk of foreign armies taking ground and citizens everywhere needing to b…
When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation. On one hand, it was controlled by the state, which also had to supply materiel, and not just random citizens making a group. Upper ranks could only be appointed by the state legislatures. On the other hand, the weaponry the militia was expected to use included horse-d…
If it never created a private right before, then it was wrongly "incorporated" by Supreme Court doctrine, and States ought to be free to set their own gun policies.