Is there a better source on this? Daily Mail is terrible: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
It's blog-/reprint-spam of the original Forbes Article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/10/04/googl...
Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
101–110 of 337 posts
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#102Is there a better source on this? Daily Mail is terrible: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
The Daily Mail is terrible, but so is Media Bias fact check. Their methodology is a joke regardless of your politics.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#103I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I would bet SCOTUS rules this kind of warrant illegal. Google certainly has the resources to take the case that far. AFAIK a warrant usually is tied to a specific person or a specific crime. In other words, if an explosion killed Harry McHarryface, then it would be constitutional to ask for names of people who searched for Harry. Or if the fertilizer used in the bomb was shown to…
Look at it this way, if a car is involved in a drive-by shooting the police can't get a warrant to search every single home that has the same year/make/model of car registered to with that address. For a legal warrant you have to have probable cause that a specific person committed a crime. You can't just search everybody and see what sticks, that's blatantly unconstitutional.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#104I recall reading stories about librarians actively refusing to give, effectively, exactly the same information back in the day.
How we have fallen.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#105Is there a better source on this? Daily Mail is terrible: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
Forbes appears to be the original source and is linked in the article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/10/04/googl...
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the current administration follow SCOTUS rulings? Edit: why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling
Can you provide a source?
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-...
> The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension.
In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the current administration follow SCOTUS rulings? Edit: why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling
Can you link to info about that?
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-08-04/biden-...
> The president knows this. He told the press that his administration had surveyed the opinions of constitutional scholars, and that most thought an extension would be unlawful. Yet under political pressure from the left, Biden nevertheless ultimately decided to issue the extension.
In other words: SCOTUS wrote words clearly indicating a ban would be illegal. By a technicality (expiration date), they didn't issue an explicit ruling. Biden did it anyway, while admitting he knew it was illegal.
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the current administration follow SCOTUS rulings? Edit: why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling
Can you link to info about that?
At least with the eviction moratorium, it was ruled unconstitutional by scotus and biden doubled down and enacted a new illegal eviction moratorium.
Seems like they are kind of picking and choosing what rules they'll follow, and which rights they think people deserve
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#109I'm confused how anyone would think a keyword warrant was constitutionally ok. Curious what the argument looks like. I don't see how it passes tests for "unreasonable" or "broad".
People who do these things don't think about the constitutionality and are decidedly "ends justify the means".
Re: Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correction: the police forces that intervened reported how the suspect was holding an object resembling an improvised explosive device when he was fatally shot.
Real life: This bullet killed Vicki Weaver, who was standing behind the door in the cabin where Harris entered.[108] Vicki was holding the Weavers' 10-month-old baby Elisheba. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge
I've seen the same terms ("the bullet killed") used to describe the recent death of Halyna Hutchins on set of Alec Baldwin's film