4th Amendment Thread

[Fife]

Should I not have the freedom to wear a pot-leaf t-shirt? How about a pot-leaf sign in my yard? Is that no longer protected?

Is the difference that (in your hypothetical), I explicitly print that "I'm Smoking Pot", rather than using a symbol?

Somebody in the class help catass out.

May he wear or say any words or symbols he likes to?

Is he free from arrest and prosecution because his words / symbols tend to incriminate him as an admission of guilt?

Does the First Amendment have anything to do with what we are talking about?

Don't be afraid, if you know the answer; let 'er rip!

[SuburbanFarmer]

Another big leak. Another mysterious “child porn collector” is found.

Seems there’s absolutely zero privacy left now. Encryption doesn’t even work.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06- ... ach-agency

[pineapplemike]

Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy
US justices say law enforcement needs a warrant to follow your digital footprints.
https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-court ... tion-data/

In a 5-4 decision on Friday the justices said that police need warrants to gather phone location data as evidence for trials. That reversed and remanded a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Carpenter v. United States is the first case about phone location data that the Supreme Court has ruled on. That makes it a landmark decision regarding how law enforcement agencies can use technology as they build cases. The court heard arguments in the case on Nov. 29.

The dispute dates back to a 2011 robbery in Detroit, after which police gathered months of phone location data from Timothy Carpenter's phone provider. They pulled together 12,898 different locations from Carpenter, over 127 days.

The legal and privacy concern was that police gathered the four months' worth of Carpenter's digital footprints without a warrant. A Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judge ruled that cellphone location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure, and therefore didn't require a warrant.

In the Supreme Court's ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the government's searches of Carpenter's phone records were considered a Fourth Amendment search.

"The Government's position fails to contend with the seismic shifts in digital technology that made possible the tracking of not only Carpenter's location but also everyone else's, not for a short period but for years and years," he wrote.

Roberts said that allowing government access to historical GPS data infringes on Carpenter's Fourth Amendment protections and expectation of privacy, by providing law enforcement with an "all-encompassing record" of his whereabouts. He added that historical GPS data presents an "even greater privacy risk" than real-time GPS monitoring.

Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote the opinion sided with the court's four liberal judges; Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer - while Justice Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

This should have been a 9-0 decision, no?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Supreme Court says warrant necessary for phone location data in win for privacy
US justices say law enforcement needs a warrant to follow your digital footprints.
https://www.cnet.com/news/supreme-court ... tion-data/

In a 5-4 decision on Friday the justices said that police need warrants to gather phone location data as evidence for trials. That reversed and remanded a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Carpenter v. United States is the first case about phone location data that the Supreme Court has ruled on. That makes it a landmark decision regarding how law enforcement agencies can use technology as they build cases. The court heard arguments in the case on Nov. 29.

The dispute dates back to a 2011 robbery in Detroit, after which police gathered months of phone location data from Timothy Carpenter's phone provider. They pulled together 12,898 different locations from Carpenter, over 127 days.

The legal and privacy concern was that police gathered the four months' worth of Carpenter's digital footprints without a warrant. A Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judge ruled that cellphone location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable search and seizure, and therefore didn't require a warrant.

In the Supreme Court's ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the government's searches of Carpenter's phone records were considered a Fourth Amendment search.

"The Government's position fails to contend with the seismic shifts in digital technology that made possible the tracking of not only Carpenter's location but also everyone else's, not for a short period but for years and years," he wrote.

Roberts said that allowing government access to historical GPS data infringes on Carpenter's Fourth Amendment protections and expectation of privacy, by providing law enforcement with an "all-encompassing record" of his whereabouts. He added that historical GPS data presents an "even greater privacy risk" than real-time GPS monitoring.

Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote the opinion sided with the court's four liberal judges; Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer - while Justice Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

This should have been a 9-0 decision, no?

Now if we can just get them to enforce the actual warrant system, instead of this FISA nonsense...

EDIT: Ahh, I missed that part at the bottom, where they added an exception for real-time tracking.

He added that historical GPS data presents an "even greater privacy risk" than real-time GPS monitoring.

[Okeefenokee]

So... yes.

Yup. There’s nothing unique about FB that makes it off limits to Law Enforcement. If the guy had erected a sign in his front yard that announced the fact that he was ingesting an illegal substance, we wouldn’t criticize a passing cop from taking notice. Which is essentially what you’re doing when you post stupid shit on FB.

I'm thinking about that yard sign. What if a guy was wearing a shirt out on the sidewalk that says "I <3 SHROOMS," or if he has a bumper sticker on his car motoring down the street with a sticker with a picture of a mushroom and the caption "let's eat some" underneath?

I got suspended for a shirt that said, "Can you feel my love buzz?" but the kid wearing that shirt was free and clear. There is no justice.

[Speaker to Animals]

So it's a crime to solicit thots on Facebook?

[Fife]

More to come, and soon enough; this one is a bit dense. The opinions in this case are landmarks to be cited; fo shizzie.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Don't worry, Zuck will take care of those pesky Constitutional issues...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06- ... d-messages

Facebook has filed a patent for a system that hides audio clips in TV commercials. These sounds would be so high-pitched that they are inaudible to human beings. They would then trigger your phone to record all the background noises in your home. The patent application is called “broadcast content view analysis based on ambient audio recording.”

[Fife]

How many of your dependents are running Faceberg as you read this?

[Zlaxer]

Don't worry, Zuck will take care of those pesky Constitutional issues...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06- ... d-messages

Facebook has filed a patent for a system that hides audio clips in TV commercials. These sounds would be so high-pitched that they are inaudible to human beings. They would then trigger your phone to record all the background noises in your home. The patent application is called “broadcast content view analysis based on ambient audio recording.”

Sure this is realz? Why would they file directly in the name of FB? as opposed to a holding co?