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

US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 311 posts

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#301

Post by ratelimitsteve »

deathanatos wrote: post #189
dmfdmf wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is the same argument used when the Biden admin during covid pressured the media companies to cancel people and news they did not like for "misinformation" instead of calling it censorship. This and LEOs buying data from Big Corp is just end-running the 1st and 4th amendments which is ultimately fascism.

The Biden administration both asked nicely for actual, factually incorrect information to be corrected by sites and pressured sites. They were taken to court over both, and they prevailed on the former and lost on the latter: the administration (any administration) is permitted to ask a site for a correction, and it is then truly at the site's discretion. They are not permitted to pressure them.

you are factually correct but realistically the office of the president cannot ask for anything without pressure, by nature of being the office of the president

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#302

Post by catapart »

parineum wrote: post #283
catapart wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. And this hypocritical bench has had a pattern of ruling sensibly on minor issues like this just before ruling with torturous rationalizations to strip rights from people on larger issues. Feels like there's about to be some pure bullshit spewing from the right flank of this illegitimate court. I'd dearly love to be wrong about this, but I'm not holding out hope. Until alito and thomas are impeached for unconstit…

> And this hypocritical bench has had a pattern of ruling sensibly on minor issues like this just before ruling with torturous rationalizations to strip rights from people on larger issues. Care to cite some examples? In my experience, the "big" cases, that the media has been talking about are all decided to be big after the fact. There are a multitude of cases that everyone is anticipating being big but they are rul…

No, I'm not going to cite you examples. The hypocrisy is evident in the Arkansas voting rights flip flop from last session to this one. The chevron ruling is as Republican as it gets. I don't care anything about your rationalizations and I'm not here to debate the minutia of the most destructive bench in my lifetime. Roe v Wade was not an abortion issue, it was a fourth amendment issue and they absolutely botched it. Sell your bullshit elsewhere.

Very relieved to admit I was wrong about this verdict and even happier I didn't put money on it, but it doesn't undo the damage they have already done and I don't have any tolerance for faux centrism that equivocates about the pure nonsense being legitimized by our current judicial slate.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#303

Post by me-vs-cat »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #65
autoexec wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I guess don't bring your phone to a bank robbery. You should also make sure not to bring your phone to anywhere where a nearby crime is happening because that's all it takes to make you a suspect and force you spend a bunch of money defending yourself. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike... Hopefully rulings like this make that scenario a little less likely to happen, but it doesn't stop it…

one of the more fun things I learned during criminal court in Texas is that the absence of forensic evidence cannot exonerate an individual. The prosecutor and the judge covered that despite not having any forensic evidence, the jury would still be expected to be able to convict the defendant. If you weren't OK with that you weren't eligible to serve on a jury.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The expectation of evidence makes its absence significant, but not definitive.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#304

Post by gwerbin »

ecshafer wrote: post #298
Edman274 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you always judge the validity of a statement according to the implications of it being true, or do you get to do it just this once as a treat? Further, how does saying a court is "corrupt" not call for "extreme measures" but referring to it as "illegitimate" does? What's the meaningful difference?

Calling members of a court corrupt, means you can pursue legal action against them, write laws, impeach, etc. calling the court itself illegitimate, implies the government that put them into power is illegitimate. Calling government illegitimate is the first move of revolutionary groups.

2-3 corrupt members of a 9-member court is pretty bad for the legitimacy of said court.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#305

Post by igjjigjk »

qingcharles wrote: post #172
sidewndr46 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judge doesn't care if the law was violated in collecting evidence.

I had a judge once tell me that the police absolutely have the right to commit crimes to gather evidence in an investigation. (mostly true -- for instance an officer can generally commit innumerable felonies as long as nothing they do violates your personal constitutional rights -- rarely is evidence thrown out because it was obtained in violation of a statute unless that statute includes a provision for exclusion, e…

[dead]

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#306

Post by ChrisKnott »

superxpro12 wrote: post #280
ChrisKnott wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just means they were completely transparent with the court when getting the data, and believed themselves it was lawful. What’s hard to believe about that? They clearly put some effort into minimising the collateral privacy intrusions.

"Sorry we broke the law, but its ok this one time because it would be detrimental to the case". I mean... slippery slope? Just because they were sincere about it doesnt make it magically ok to use the illegal evidence.

Well, it potentially does make it “ok” in the sense of being less bad than letting the guy off. That’s why the legal concept exists. There are other contexts where there is no good faith exception, but in this situation there is one.

In this case the crime is a bank robbery which isn’t victimless but most people think of as somewhat “victim-lite”. If the crime was the stranger rape of a little girl then the vast majority of people would have been outraged if the police had not obtained this warrant.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#307

Post by sidewndr46 »

NoGravitas wrote: post #292
sidewndr46 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parallel construction means the judge doesn't know.

Or can at least plausibly pretend not to.

I guess that is true, although you'd be hard pressed to prove that. I don't think any court would hear a complaint about a lower court or adjacent court having participated willingly in parallel construction.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#308

Post by Cider9986 »

catapart wrote: post #80
Cider9986 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a 94% chance the EO is struck down on polymarket.

It's disturbing that the statistic you cite does give me hope (if true). But if I had an account, I'd still put $50 against it. I'm cynical enough to at least entertain the possibility that these corrupt dickheads have let the market get that lopsided as a way to cash in on top of their odious ruling (by way of bribes after they make other people richer).

And your $50 would be gone.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#309

Post by parineum »

catapart wrote: post #302
parineum wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And this hypocritical bench has had a pattern of ruling sensibly on minor issues like this just before ruling with torturous rationalizations to strip rights from people on larger issues. Care to cite some examples? In my experience, the "big" cases, that the media has been talking about are all decided to be big after the fact. There are a multitude of cases that everyone is anticipating being big but they are rul…

No, I'm not going to cite you examples. The hypocrisy is evident in the Arkansas voting rights flip flop from last session to this one. The chevron ruling is as Republican as it gets. I don't care anything about your rationalizations and I'm not here to debate the minutia of the most destructive bench in my lifetime. Roe v Wade was not an abortion issue, it was a fourth amendment issue and they absolutely botched it.…

Both Chevron and Roe could be fixed by very simple legislation and should have been in the first place.

You seem a lot more concerned with the outcome of the decisions rather than if they were correct.

Re: US Supreme Court rules geofence warrants require constitutional protections

#310

Post by ghc »

jacobr1 wrote: post #287
gandreani wrote: post #207

It's such a little thing but while reading the opinion I see that the court (Kagan in this case?) makes a factual claim it provides SOURCES. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-112_0am4.pdf "Modern cell phones, we observed a dozen years ago, are “such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy.” Riley v.…

The surprising bit is that 10% of Americans DO NOT own a smartphone. That must be exceedingly difficult. Increasingly everyday activities require them, without fallbacks. I presume those numbers exclude children, and then if you account for the infirm, it wouldn't surprise me if we started to get to universal levels of ownership.

It's people over 65. Cell phone ownership is pretty much universal, but only 78% of people 65+ own a smartphone. I don't think that's really surprising at all. I wouldn't expect an 80 year old to adopt a smartphone when their cognition, fine motor control, and/or vision is going. And who needs one in a nursing home? I bet if they broke it down further you'd find that the non-ownership skews towards people who were already elderly ~15 years ago.
Post reply on HN