Feds order Google to track people searching certain names or details

Post by 1cvmask » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #35

boibombeiro wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You can look up terrorism incidents in the US [1]. Far right extremism is far more likely the reason for terrorism in the US vs far left extremism. In recent years, 115 far right attacks vs 19 far left (from 2008 -> 2016). And that's with adding another category for Islamic terrorism (63) (which, in and of itself would be far right terrorism.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

Post by unethical_ban » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

tyre wrote: post #77

toolz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult to win in an SEC governed market that is corrupt by design. You'd need a competitive advantage large enough to bridge the SECs designed corruption in the market.

What does this even mean? That it’s difficult to make your stock go up because the SEC has rigged the market? Read through Tesla’s history with the SEC, specifically Musk being immature and committing securities fraud on Twitter. They’ve fined him and the company, and there is no love lost between the two, but TSLA is still going up.

Post by shkkmo » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 7:42 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #72

shkkmo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still see significant issues with using the threat of finicial repercussions and criminal charges to force dirty executives to comply with illegal efforts to spy on their customers. This is problematic not just because of the violations of those customers' rights, but also because it creates perverse incentives for the government to encourage the success of dirty tech companies as means to circumvent constitutional…

> still see significant issues with using the threat of finicial repercussions and criminal charges to force dirty executives to comply with illegal efforts to spy on their customers I do too. We just have no evidence this happened.

Post by adolph » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 7:46 PM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #62

AlbertCory wrote: post #60

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

Post by etblg » Mon, Oct 25, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

literallyaduck wrote: post #2

The only sensible solution is to name JS and CSS frameworks using the keyword list.