61–70 of 161 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple: the NSA isn't a law enforcement agency. It's not presenting evidence in court.
Hm... not so sure why this fact allows them to trample the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Most politicians in DC have no interest in stopping what the NSA is doing, so it isn't going to get stopped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would the same not apply to the Internet cables the NSA directly taps all over the World?
It's generally not useful to quote flowery language like this, because it's not legally operative. It might justify a particular application of the law, but it isn't the law. It is what lawyers call "dicta." NSA wiretaps differ in two key ways: 1) At least in theory, they are intended to capture foreign communications. People not on U.S. soil who are not U.S. citizens enjoy no protections under our Constitution. 2) T…
Warrentless cellphone searches are reasonable if only it falls within a specific exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. See Kentucky vs King. I looked up Kentucky vs King on wiki. TL;DR warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances [0] do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment…
I only read the opinion summary and the concurrence, but from the summary: > And, at least as to remote wiping, law enforcement currently has some technologies of its own for combatting the loss of evidence. And from the rest, once the officers have removed the phone from your person, there's no longer a danger of you wiping it. Of course, I don't want to suggest in the least way that officers will actually /follow/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you link to the source you're referring to?
It's confidential, releasing it would impact [pick one] a) an ongoing investigation b) the safety of undercover agent c) national security. But, trust us, source had good reliable info. [edit: to the totally confused. My comment is political satire. And it purposefully misidentified which "source" you were referring to for purposes of bitching about USA law enforcement.]
e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday.
That implies some confidential source was featured on HN yesterday. Linking to that post should do none of those things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two reasons 1) Most people "all over world" are not US citizens and therefor not covered by bill of rights "that our founding fathers fought for" (according to US Government). NSA does (claim) to attempt to identify communications of US citizens it intercepts "overseas" and doesn't look at them without cause. 2) NSA breaks the law. Routinely it would appear.
#1 is quite simply not true. Almost all US citizens I've spoken to feel strongly that we should respect others rights as we want ours to be respected. http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar... Just because its a reason they give, doesn't make it valid - but I guess thats what your #2 was addressing =)
Note I'm not making a normative statement here; rather I'm agreeing with the previous statement that this is FedGov's claim about the extent to which the BoR applies to non-US citizens abroad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would the same not apply to the Internet cables the NSA directly taps all over the World?
It's generally not useful to quote flowery language like this, because it's not legally operative. It might justify a particular application of the law, but it isn't the law. It is what lawyers call "dicta." NSA wiretaps differ in two key ways: 1) At least in theory, they are intended to capture foreign communications. People not on U.S. soil who are not U.S. citizens enjoy no protections under our Constitution. 2) T…
Therein lies IMO one of the big issues with US justice: the law is interpreted literally. But the aim of the original law (what it attempted to protect or achieve, i.e. the citizens' privacy) is not really deemed relevant.
The title is misleading. It should read "Warrantless cell phones searches illegal for people police arrest".
Police can't search your cell phone without a warrant.
Police that arrest you can't search your cell phone without a warrant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were a student at University of Nebraska-Lincoln, it'd certainly be worrying to me that an Associate Professor of English at my school doesn't understand the word "proverbial".
I was, um, joking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's generally not useful to quote flowery language like this, because it's not legally operative. It might justify a particular application of the law, but it isn't the law. It is what lawyers call "dicta." NSA wiretaps differ in two key ways: 1) At least in theory, they are intended to capture foreign communications. People not on U.S. soil who are not U.S. citizens enjoy no protections under our Constitution. 2) T…
> But signals transmitted out into the world does not fit neatly into any of those four categories. Therein lies IMO one of the big issues with US justice: the law is interpreted literally. But the aim of the original law (what it attempted to protect or achieve, i.e. the citizens' privacy) is not really deemed relevant.
In the US legal system, the intent of the law is considered quite relevant in the application of the law.