Damn Liberal Justices Protect 4A

[Big Nasty Edison]

I was asking because there are many who complain about the increasing power of the police and govt who also believe citizens shouldn't have guns. I don't understand that logic at all. I guess they dont think that police/govt will have even more power if citizens arent allowed to own guns.

Your premise is absurd because you're attempting to equate "gun control" with complete disarmament, which would require a vote by the people to change or amend the 2A. Then you are comparing that to outcry over the Supreme Court conservatives upholding that police need no approval from courts to violate your digital privacy.

 

[sub_thug]

Interesting stuff. What I don't understand is this: In this case, a cooperating suspect gave them the guy's name and they went into his records. That's pretty straightforward (and lmao @ "conservatives" for dissenting here, just lol). But can police sort through all of the records and look for patterns to identify suspects? And if they do identify suspects by mass sorting, they would have all of the same information as if they had targeted a person for a search, so what gives? If that was in the ruling I didn't see it or read far enough.

Police are unable to collect large amounts of metadata (more than 7 days worth) in order to search through it for trends as a means of looking for subjects.

The argument here is that in order to do this to catch the bad guys, you'd need to look at everyone else's data as well (call records, data use, etc) as part of the analysis. It very much reminds me of the arguments made against the mass collections programs from the NSA. It would seem that the Court arrived at the correct ruling on this one, IMO.

 

[Fawlty]

What it appears is that the Court upheld the precedent that large amounts of metadata cannot be collected without a warrant, reaffirming the decision that the mass-collection programs by the NSA were also illegal on 4th Amendment grounds. This seems like the correct and reasonable ruling. The government shouldn't be able to use large bodies of data to convict you of a crime without having a warrant to collect that information.

Since they had the guy's identity and went to search him specifically, definitely the right call, imo. It was kind of ridiculous negligence not to get a warrant here.

But let's say we have a serious crime that takes place in succession, in 3 distinct places in a city, and we have raw location data for all of the people in this large area.

A reliable way to solve this crime, theoretically, is to filter the raw location data until we have the entities who were in each of the 3 places at the times of the crimes. From that we generate a list of suspects and establish their identities.

Clearly we want this capability (or at least I hope we do...). At what point should we need a warrant? It seems to me that we would want to filter the raw data and identify those people as suspects. It feels like there is a contradiction here, because we're identifying the people with their data before getting the warrant, but by principle we should need the warrant to search the data of the people.

 

[sub_thug]

I just don't understand why every single thing has to be framed as a left vs right thing? Can't we just agree that some things, such as privacy, are simply good for all Americans? And shouldn't we focus our time and energy on dealing with those things instead of lobbing political grenades at one another?

 

[BudKing8806]

Your premise is absurd because you're attempting to equate "gun control" with complete disarmament, which would require a vote by the people to change or amend the 2A. Then you are comparing that to outcry over the Supreme Court conservatives upholding that police need no approval from courts to violate your digital privacy.

Im not talking about fucking gun control. Im talking about the people saying no one should be able to own any fucking guns. Then in the next thread they're bitching about big govt and trump. What the hell would happen with the power of the govt and Trump who is labeled literally Hitler if no one had guns? Do you think if he overstepped his authority that someone could just talk to him and change his mind about anything? Or, would he have complete authority over everyone? I guess it's moot since guns aren't going anywhere. Neither is trump.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Im not talking about fucking gun control. Im talking about the people saying no one should be able to own any fucking guns.

Please show me a person who said they want complete disarmament of America and complained about police state.

 

[sub_thug]

Since they had the guy's identity and went to search him specifically, definitely the right call, imo. It was kind of ridiculous negligence not to get a warrant here.

But let's say we have a serious crime that takes place in succession, in 3 distinct places in a city, and we have raw location data for all of the people in this large area.

A reliable way to solve this crime, theoretically, is to filter the raw location data until we have the entities who were in each of the 3 places at the times of the crimes. From that we generate a list of suspects and establish their identities.

Clearly we want this capability (or at least I hope we do...). At what point should we need a warrant? It seems to me that we would want to filter the raw data and identify those people as suspects. It feels like there is a contradiction here, because we're identifying the people with their data before getting the warrant, but by principle we should need the warrant to search the data of the people.

I suppose that data could be seized without a warrant in the event of exigent circumstances, but that's not something you want to rely on, and if that's the card you play all the time, then this ruling is meaningless.

I get what you are saying about the chicken/egg problem though. It would appear that we don't want this capability, and perhaps we shouldn't, given that we have to look through everyone else's information in order to filter properly? That part is a judgment call. I'm inclined to come down on the side of privacy, but I certainly understand the case you're making towards giving law enforcement this capability.

As something of an aside, this problem is going get considerably more interesting once 5G technology becomes a thing. For that tech to work, we won't have cell phones that cover several miles per tower. These things will be covering, at most, 2-3 blocks. I wonder if the ruling will stand as technology changes and the amount of data you'd need to filter becomes much smaller, meaning that fewer people will have the call records used as evidence? Will privacy trump law enforcement effectiveness if you're looking at 100 people's phone records instead of 5,000? I don't know.

 

[BudKing8806]

Please show me a person who said they want complete disarmament of America and complained about police state.

I'm not looking back through thousands of posts to find an example. I don't care that much. Like I said, guns aren't going anywhere and I'll own any gun I please and there's nothing anyone can do about it. As for the police, I wouldn't call those fuckers if my life depended on it. Which, that will never happen either since I own guns. But to stay on topic, I agree with the ruling.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It's as I said before, liberals will prop up 4A conservatives 2A. It's a matter of which one you value more.

Fuck anybody who doesn't support both.

 

[sub_thug]

Fuck anybody who doesn't support both.

It's almost like those Amendments should mean something. Constitutionally-protected freedoms are not to be taken lightly.

 

[spin]

I just don't understand why every single thing has to be framed as a left vs right thing? Can't we just agree that some things, such as privacy, are simply good for all Americans? And shouldn't we focus our time and energy on dealing with those things instead of lobbing political grenades at one another?

I was about to write the exact same thing before I saw your post.

 

[LMP]

Right decision imo.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf

TLDR guy robs Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores. FBI used cell phone tracking data over 3 months to prove he was near the stores when they were robbed. FBI did not get a warrant. Court said yeah no you need a warrant.

Court ruled as follows:

Roberts writes majority joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan

Thomas, Alito, Kennedy had a dissenting together. Thomas, Alito, and Gorusch also had their own separate dissenting opinions.

I haven't read the whole opinion but if you the court loses another liberal justice while tRUmp or another R is POTUS good bye to digital age protections. Your 2A won't do shit for you when police engage in no knock raids from evidence obtained digitally without a warrant

I'm having a hard time getting upset when you show the alternative option is that some crook doesn't get away with stealing.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

RU= russia

Way to signify (at least the campaign's) Russian connections

I thought they were trying to say rump LOL!

 

[7437]

So, in this police state, would you two prefer to be able to own firearms or no? Not trying to belittle you guys, but I'm curious.

DEFLECT !!!!! EVERYONE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE!!!!!!!

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Fuck anybody who doesn't support both.

I agree. Personally i value 4A above all others but that doesn't mean we fuck the others over. Why supporting one but not the other a political position I'll never understand.