|
Real0ne -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 9:48:23 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Ok, kinkroids here's the issue here for me and why I brought it up.
I want a very robust search warrant system where all the FBI had to do was inform the court that with what (likely a lot) was very probable cause to make their case for 'breaking' into his phone.
I've seen otherwise average law biding people have something searched and been convicted with it called an 'administrative' search. New name (Orwellian) for warrantless searches.
People, politicians and other critics, often bring up something called a 'slippery slope' to this or that. These extra-constitutional proceedings are a big time slippery slope to gradually seeing over time, the evisceration of our bill of rights.
This decision will either keep us protected for a few more years or it will having us surely a 'slipping' further down that slope...to fascism.
Note:.....the Emancipation Proclamation had no force of law. Even historians and accredited legal officers at the time and dozens since then, knew it meant little or nothing but had to be backed up by what ? The union army. [It] was going to show the rebellious states...who was in charge now and that you will 'never get your slaves back.'
as I said recently, the gubmint uses "third parties" to circumvent your rights to accomplish their agenda, which top priority is iron fisted control.
NSA's prism allows them to warrantlessly monitor you by associating with people outside the US, what do we have here but an army of fucking brits constantly attacking our constitution with bullshit.
Anyone can set themselves up outside the US and communicate with whoever they want, triggering monitoring.
None of this should have ever came into existence in the first place but we no longer have a congress or courts we have overlords that are above the law.
In Carpenter, the government is expected to rely upon the Stored Communications Act and Smith v. Maryland to support its position that obtaining the service provider’s location information should not require a warrant because the information only reveals a cell phone’s routing data rather than the contents of communications on the cell phone. The attorneys for Carpenter are expected to rely on the Fourth Amendment and Riley v. California to argue that cell phones have become intertwined into the lives of American citizens and the vast data contained within a person’s phone potentially holds the sum of the individual’s private life, so the routing data contains much more than the “information necessary to get communications from point A to point B”.[10]
These are personal effects being held by third party companies that wont hesitate to turn over everything they have, further more that information can and is used for tracking, so these asswipes go into court and pretend there is nothing more to is than cell connections, while shoving the red white and blue dick up everyones assholes.
EFFECT, v. To do; to produce; to make; to
bring to pass; to execute; enforce; accomplish.
Personal effects is a reference to everyday items of personal use, usually referred to in the disposition of belongings in a will. It includes clothes, cosmetics and items of adornment. Personal effects can include such things as jewelry, appliances, tools, furniture, clothing, china, silver, coin collections, works of art, and the like.
effect
1a : purport, intentb : basic meaning : essence
2 : something that inevitably follows an antecedent (such as a cause or agent)
3 : an outward sign : appearance
4 : accomplishment, fulfillment
5 : power to bring about a result : influence the content itself of television … is therefore less important than its effect — Current Biography
6 effects plural : movable property : goods personal effects
7a : a distinctive impression the color gives the effect of being warmb : the creation of a desired impression her tears were purely for effectc (1) : something designed to produce a distinctive or desired impression —usually used in plural (2) effects plural : special effects
8 : the quality or state of being operative : operation the law goes into effect next week
In the case of the constitution in addtion to things, this is the one that applies:
2 : something that inevitably follows an antecedent (such as a cause or agent)
Bravo Jane Branstetter Stranch
Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch dissented from the majority’s conclusion that the collection of the service provider’s business records did not constitute a search. In her dissent, Judge Stranch states, “this case involves tracking physical location through cell towers and a personal phone, a device routinely carried on the individual's person; it also involves the compelled provision of records that reflect such tracking. In light of the personal tracking concerns articulated in our precedent, I am not convinced that the situation before us can be addressed appropriately with a test primarily used to obtain business records such as credit card purchases — records that do not necessarily reflect personal location. And it seems to me that the business records test is ill suited to address the issues regarding personal location that are before us.”[16]
Her above complaint regards business as fucking usual swamp, they create or use improperly framed tests and frame them as 'reasonable' then a plethora of unconstitutional regulation results, with third parties gladly turning over your data because why would they give a shit in the first place, its your problem not theirs. So simple to undermine the fucking system and no one is the wiser because they cant see that big fucking elephant sitting on their heads.
and this is only the tip of the iceburg peeps you have no idea how deep that river flows, right to your next door neighbor.
rest assured when this is done da gubmint will insure it retains its ability to spy on people conficate their data and continue violating the constitutiopn, after all they already passed an unconstitutional act, and btw fascism isnt coming to america its in the home stretch
You dont and never will see any 'we the people' in any of these decisions because we only have the priviledge to BEG the disconnected court overlords.
|
|
|
|
