Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
In dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito said he would have found that no warrant is required, calling the ruling an “irresponsible escapade” that the court should never have agreed to hear.
He accused the majority of “striking a pose as a great champion of privacy in the digital age.”
And he says that like it's a bad thing. What an asshole.
Not really a surprise, but worth pointing out anyway.
Alito is basically a cartoon character at this point.
Shouldn't be long now before he rules that it's constitutional to tie young women to train tracks, so long as corporate profits are involved somehow.
Shouldn't be long now before he rules that it's constitutional to tie young women to train tracks, so long as corporate profits are involved somehow.
Trolly problem is constitutional, and the corporation in charge of the lever can’t be held liable as long as profits go up
Misleading headline: The Court didn't actually say that a warrant was required for these geofence searches.
What the court actually said: a request for geofenced location data addressed to a service provider is actually a search that could require a warrant. These requests are not just subpoenas for business records.
The supreme court sent the case back down to the circuit court to determine whether a warrant was specifically required in this case.
When it comes to searches, a warrant is usually required, but there are a number of complicated exceptions for "reasonable" searches where no warrant is needed.
So they're going to be taking down all the flock cameras then, right?
Flock is planning around that.
They're increasingly making deals to put their surveillance tech on private property facing public property. The Amazon deal fell through, but it'll be back much more quietly.
One of the groups they're making deals with is HOAs. They're replacing their existing neighborhood cameras with Flock cameras super cheap in order to get cameras facing the road where municipalities have banned them.