Citizens are perfectly capable of weighing these factors and making these decisions themselves. That's exactly what consent is.
This is precisely what happened. The court weighed all future traffic stops and unilaterally decided that everyone wanted to give their consent, even the cases where said "probable cause" is B.S. and wouldn't result in a warrant. The only convenience provided is not having to decide if you want your rights, because you're preemptively denied them.
Can I assume this ruling will get escalated to a higher court where they've got a clue why there are "rules for government" at all?
I'm pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson, on announcing the adoption of the 4th amendment, said "this measure will ensure the rights and liberties of our citizens are not unduly impinged; you know, unless it's like hard and stuff. Totally just ignore this if it seems like a burden. Oh, and we specifically didn't mention buggies or ships here, so it doesn't apply to personal transport. Don't bother getting a warrant if someone's going to be waiting around for like two hours. That's ridiculous."
The relevance here is that the TSA's only concern is unlocking bags, which is why they "don't give a shit" if other people can also unlock bags. It makes their job easier... Actually it would be easier if no one locked their bags at all, but some people want their possessions kept private. So the TSA convinced them this fundamentally unsound alternative was acceptable even though it's not.
This is all equally true of the FBI/NSA and encrypted communication.
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL OF THOSE INCLINED TO KNEEJERK DEFENSES OF AUTHORITY
September 17, 2015 To all biased law enforcement association presidents: If you have never struggled with someone who is illegally arresting you or who pulled a gun or taser on you when they approached you to exercise their own ego, then you may mischaracterize the actions of police officers putting the public good in harm’s way for their own gain.
It is mystifying to all citizens to see police chiefs and union reps whose only expertise seems to be making blanket statements commending any and all police action, while condemning those commenting from outside the system, and who have never faced the dangers that police officers routinely cause, come to instant conclusions that an officer’s actions were right based upon nothing but the fact that an officer committed them. That is irresponsible, unjust and un-American. Worse than that, your uninformed rhetoric is inflammatory and only serves to worsen community/police relations.
In the unfortunate case of former tennis pro, James Blake, -- who was clearly mistakenly identified by a complainant -- there certainly could be mitigating circumstances which caused the officer to handle the situation in the suddenly violent manner he did. Do they exist? Frankly, no one will know for sure until there is a full and complete investigation. That is why full and complete investigations are needed, even when the focus of the examination is a police officer. The public has seen too many abuses of power swept under the rug, and it seems the only way to accomplish the oversight police are supposed to levy upon each other is with public outcry. Let all of the facts lead where they will, but all citizens have equal benefit of the doubt because presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our legal system.
The men and women of the United States are once again disheartened to read another the knee-jerk reaction from authoritarian advocates who enjoy the safety provided by police department immunity without understanding the very real risks that it poses to our society. Due process is the American way of obtaining justice, not summary innocent judgments by law enforcement bureaucracy or advocates unwilling to investigate and prosecute their comrades.
"Used in repressive regimes by dissidents and journalists, Tor is considered a crucial tool for freedom of expression and counts the State Department among its top donors because Tor has been a thorn in the side of law enforcement."
Exactly. I called the B.S. on Sprint when they added their $20 "premium data" fee when you had a smartphone on your unlimited plan instead of a feature phone. It's just a price hike on the same product while spitting on my cupcake and telling me it's a feature.
Go ahead and replace "data" in your argument with "water". If you'd paid a flat fee for unlimited water and after using a bit too much one month it slowed to a trickle and you couldn't wash clothes or shower, would it be unlimited water? "It's water there's nothing related to speed!"