A necessary condition of being a passerby—on a road or otherwise—is that your observations are time-limited and coincidental. If law enforcement is engaged in any form of examination that a member of the public could not do in passing, then it’s a search, by definition.
If we reduce the 6th Circuit’s argument to its absurb conclusion, then cameras could be installed outside every private home, trained on us 24/7, and we couldn’t complain. Nobody reasonably expects—or would tolerate—such monitoring.
If only we could harness the power from the rotational forces of the founding fathers collectively rolling over in their graves…
Without probable cause, there is only a general warrant, which is unconstitutional. We have no business assisting in enforcing legal standards that differ from our own and which we abandoned as inferior.
This. I can’t tell which is more dangerous—a government that wants to publicly and explicitly codify powers that take priority over those of its citizens’ rights into constitutional law, or the government that has planned in open secret to seize that same authority.
Then again according to US law, even wget is a hacking tool if the stars align correctly.
You may be correct, but I'm not aware of any official classification of wget as a hacking tool or of there being anything intrinsically illegal—or even detrimental—about it. It's described as a "command-line web browser," and it's the same utility that Mark Zuckerberg used on the road to building his Facebook empire. If a site honors a request for downloads, is that not tacit approval to do so?
This is my question, as well. By staking out a gardening center's every customer for plate info, are they not already technically engaged in a mass warrantless search/seizure? Considering how many people garden as a hobby, it's a baseless presumption that a consumer at such a shop must be up to something illegal, and having the government tracking citizen whereabouts without a bona fide reason is not the intent of the 4th amendment.
Schiff's use of "our" and "we" in the first block quote makes perfect sense, when you realize it refers to the privacy of the surveillance state, rather than that of the citizens. They would love to go back to the pre-Snowden days and not subject themselves to the intrusiveness of others knowing that they're doing all that pesky illegal spying. Everything the government does lately just further entrenches the whole apparatus.
Pepperidge Farms cookies come in myriad shapes; e.g. oval, braided, tubular, and round. Their Brussels cookie is basically a round Milano. Do they claim ownership of all these shapes? Many others have made similar looking cookies for decades, such as the Royal Dansk sugar cookies that get sold in tins. Some of Pepperidge Farms cookies bear a striking resemblance. Trademark violation!
If the receiving party is in communication with someone via their PlayStation, then they obviously have both a copy of the message and the ability to read it. That person can assist in the investigation by turning over the console to the authorities. Someone on Slashdot pointed out that Feinstein's granddaughter is 26. If she still needs legal protection from pedophiles, perhaps she should look into using the built-in parental controls.
The unintended consequence is that the rights of every American citizen are chilled. The respect for human rights is the only real inherent value of citizenship, and that appears to have been unawfully and unethically exchanged in the service of unsubstantiated national security claims and the perception—which appears to have been false, in this case—that someone is a terrorist. If you value your life, you don't dare consider travelling outside of the country.
There is only one reason for a government to keep trade secrets from its people, and that is that the populace won't like what it sees. The fact that multiple branches of government are colluding to maintain a veil of secrecy is all the evidence needed to prove that they're selling somebody down the river and that they're actively denying those parties' ability to stop it.
You can't be represented in something about which you don't know, and this flagrant denial of democractic participation mirrors—in degree—the events that sparked the American Revolution. There should be a no confidence vote against all government actors that participate in such shenanigans before civil unrest becomes a very real possibility.
If this person is getting a thrill from stirring up the pot by pitting his own aliases against each other, that moves into personality disorder territory. Whatever pathology is behind trolling, it's not a crime. Make-believe is a free expression. I thought the TSA had the imaginary threat market cornered, but it looks like there aren't enough legitimate terrorists for the FBI to concern themselves with either.
But such is the nature of the government’s privileged control over certain classes of information. Plaintiffs must realize that secrecy is yet another form of regulation, prescribing not “what the citizen may do” but instead “what the citizen may know.”... Regulations of this sort may frustrate the inquisitive citizen but that does not make them illegal or illegitimate.”
Asserting privileged, secret control over citizens in a supposed representative democracy can only lead to an inauspicious outcome. Such regulations are inherently illegitimate, as they don't jibe with the right to redress grievances. The judge's statement is totalitarian horsehit.
The judge in this case, Dolores Umbridge, simply got it wrong. Intimidating a student with unwarranted suspension impedes, if not destroys, the ability to teach because it causes the student body to exterminate all rational thought and to regard their teachers with well-deserved contempt. The student owes no debt of respect to the administration; he should be free, in his off-campus activities, to criticize the miscreant coaches at his school with impunity. The school has no corresponding right to not feel intimidated.
The Vizio terms of service are unconscionable. This alleged “agreement” is made under duress, given that their product is unmerchantable by design; according to a response (to my complaint) from Vizio’s own tech support representative, you must consent to their TOS or you can’t even use the intended functionality of the device; no reasonable consumer would buy a TV that could only be used by consenting to onerous and unfairly one-sided terms. Further, the written agreement expressly allows Vizio to modify the terms unilaterally without notification to the other party and does not provide for the ablity to rescind.
These surveillance mongers would be laughable if their their liberty-destroying agenda wasn’t so dangerous. How long will they whisper this poison before the same twats that authored the Patriot and USA Freedom Acts eventually pass legislation that disallows Apple et al. from offering encryption?