151–160 of 337 posts
I'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…
Does the current administration follow SCOTUS rulings? Edit: why am I being downvotes? The president explicitly stated his plan to ignore another SCOTUS ruling
I made the switch from DDG to Startpage.com the day when Bing/DDG censored "tank man" results on the anniversary of Tiananmen Square, haven't looked back. I do miss the !bangs, so I have a browser shortcut to access those when I need them.
Startpage.com uses Google results, which besides having become kinda useless, have their own issue with censorship [0] [0] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html
I'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".
The article does say "specific addresses and phone numbers." So if a legal warrant can be issued for police to stake out a specific address, or wiretap a specific phone number, why would it be worse to have another legal warrant for asking Google for information about searches for that same address or phone number?
There's also a screenshot of one warranted search in the article that had no names/addresses/phone numbers. They wanted everyone that searched for combinations of "cardboard", "bomb", etc: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/10/06/15/48837793-10063665... That's very "thought crime" to me.
Pre-internet, it feels like a warrant for anyone that ran their finger down page xyz of the phone book.
Any idea about, what the blacked words would be?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean yea, everything you do at work in a defense contractor is keylogged. They don't need to ask Google, they know what you're doing on their network.
He said he did it from home though. I always wondered if he was making it up or not, but this was the Bush era (not that that much has changed).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who do these things don't think about the constitutionality and are decidedly "ends justify the means".
They do have have to get a judge to sign it though. So presumably the judge at least thinks about the implications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the car was used multiple shootings, the same phone was in that area and the phone was used to search for the victims name every time then we have everything we need but are unwilling to use it? We can probably figure out how to extract such data and cross reference it without making any of it available to random government employees. Say you take pictures of license plates, store the data some place safe and allo…
>Sure, you'd get pretty mad if every time you get robbed the police searches your vehicle but they don't need to break anything and you will get over it. Or I'll stop calling the police, especially if that first invasive experience doesn't end with my belongings returned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would love for this to be viable. But I can't help but think there are all sorts of ways for our intelligence agencies to ruin a person's life for not complying. I'm not even suggesting some kind of spy-novel intrigue, you can just tell them to comply or they'll drag you and your company through the mud until they get what they want. Imagine taking a principled stand and then suddenly having your life examined unde…
This is what I fear is going to happen once surveillance-type robots start appearing in the streets. The narrative is that we'd somehow destroy them on sight but the truth is that that would be criminally persecuted.
