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

Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 208 posts

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#41

Post by pstuart »

p_ing wrote: post #30
nemomarx wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get your point but actually why can they lie and claim your buddy ratted you out?

Tax payers don't care enough to force the congress critters to change the laws in . Instead, you get human beings who are shielded by a thin piece of paper who can summarily execute you, then say "whoops, my bad". Police are nothing more than State-sponsored gang members.

Many of those tax payers are fine with them being gang members, but only against "others" -- that's a feature, not a bug.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#42

Post by mjd »

ceejayoz wrote: post #23
mjd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not responsive. The police did not commit a crime here. Also note that there are good-faith defenses to all sorts of crimes, because (for example) there is a difference between knowingly defrauding a customer and just making a mistake.

> The police did not commit a crime here. They did, however, violate the Fourth Amendment. Per the court.

The Fourth Amendment was violated by the magistrate judge who issued the illegal warrant, not by the police officers who, acting in in good faith, executed it.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#43

Post by ty6853 »

__loam wrote: post #21
ty6853 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I believe, in good faith, I have not broken the law. I should not be convicted.

This is a weird concept to people in stem fields, but in law intent matters a lot. It's the difference between manslaughter and murder.

It apparently doesn't in one of the areas of which I have a high level interest. The ATF is constantly changing their mind on what a machine gun is, and if it is one, it is a strict liability crime.

Not long ago a guy was put in jail for creating business-card sized metal sheets with the image of a 'lightning link' (machinegun conversion device) on it. Not the actual device, just a picture of it etched Up until the guy was convicted I don't think anyone had any idea a picture of a machine gun on a metal card was a machine gun. They even convicted the guy advertising it, who never as far as I know actually distributed one.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#45

Post by ty6853 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34
ty6853 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeremy Kettler -- bought a silencer completely made and sold within his state (no interstate commerce) and believed based on the Kansas Second Amendment Act (I think that was the name) which legalized intrastate NFA items that it was 100% legal. His own state representatives had advertised to their constituents that the law exempted silencers that never crossed state boundaries. The buyer and seller did it openly and…

The SAFA case is complicated, granted, and rare; it reached the appellate circuit for a reason. CSAM and child sexual assault are one of the few areas of criminal law where we confer (in my opinion, correctly) absolute liability. Broadly speaking, I think more cops have been convicted of duty-related crimes than unsuspecting random convicted of and punished for a crime they didn’t know they committed.

These kind of convictions aren't rare in the firearms domain. People get arrested or convicted all the time for doing stuff they had no idea was illegal. More recently a Navy Sailor (Patrick Adamiak) in the pipeline to be a SEAL was convicted after selling an imported parts kit that had been destroyed per ATF guidelines from the early 2000s. But apparently when he resold it, (after buying it openly from gunbroker), the ATF decided the way the kit was cut up was wrong and put him away for 20 years. Oh yes they had a few other excuses -- he had a decomissioned RPG tube, so the ATF just put an entirely other gun inside the fucking tube and fired it to claim it still work.

In that case, even the Navy, which almost never does this to felons, terminated him with an honorable discharge and even let him run up all his liberty time before releiving him.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#47

Post by Vegenoid »

mjd wrote: post #39
plsbenice34 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excluding the evidence would incentivize police to stop choosing the most convenient interpretation of the law. They should have to try to make the most accurate interpretation, which means punishment when they are wrong. Just like for everyone else

No. In 2020 the police went to a magistrate judge to ask for a warrant. The judge issued the warrant. Five years later, another judge has determined that the warrant should not have been issued in the first place. That is not the fault of the police, and there is no reason to punish them for it.

The evidence can be suppressed without punishing the police.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#48

Post by Jimmc414 »

Interesting that the recent ruling against blanket cell tower data searches wouldn't have affected the Mark Gooch case. In that insatnce, investigators used targeted cell phone data (ie "geofencing") to track his movements, not a mass data collection. Under the new standards, this type of focused surveillance would still be permitted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBBTfy29WKI

They absolutely wouldn't have caught him without the cell phone data, highlighting in my mind, the fine line between privacy and safety, which is something I personally struggle to articulate clearly. While it's reassuring this ruling wouldn't affect this case, I can easily see how "tower dumps" could be misused. It's confusing, though, that the judge ruled this unconstitutional action permissible "just this once." Either it's unconstitutional or it's not. Judges shouldn't have the authority grant one-time exceptions.

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#49

Post by [deleted] »

nemomarx wrote: post #25
Terr_ wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only that, when they lie in conversations/interrogations, they can lie about what the law is , as well as what official acts can/will undertake. To me there is a fundamental difference between lies like: 1. "Your buddy in the next room already ratted you out." 2. "Sign this admission and you'll only get 6 months, tops. If you don't, we can seize your house and your mother will be living on the streets. "

I get your point but actually why can they lie and claim your buddy ratted you out?

[deleted]

Re: Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional

#50

Post by [deleted] »

mjd wrote: post #38
flipnotyk wrote: post #4

"It's unconstitutional and illegal, but you're not being held accountable and you can still use the data." Yeah that tracks.

It is not reasonable to hold someone accountable for doing something illegal in 2020 that was only determined to be illegal in 2025. The police officers applied to a judge for a warrant. The judge gave them the warrant. Now another judge says that the warrant should not have been issued in the first place. How is that the police's fault? How would you hold them accountable?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN