The Supreme Court has over multiple cases recognized that the collection of mass digital information can implicate Fourth Amendment protections.
replyHere is the foundational line:
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
It clearly says: The right of the people to to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches shall not be violated.
Well the problem comes down to what is considered "unreasonable searches". When I think "surveillance", I think cameras on cars that photograph everything they pass by. The courts have again and again considered those to be reasonable with no expectations of privacy. And the trucks in this article are doing exactly that.
replyWireless cell communications have no expectation of privacy?
replyHave you asserted or waived your rights? You may have the right to consult an attorney.
replyI certainly have no agreement with the Texas police or any government through which I could have waived any rights.
replyConstitutionally granted rights cannot be waived, no matter what a legal agreement says.
replyHigh certainty statement, where did you get that from?
replyYou can certainly do so, such as waiving the right to a jury trial.
replyYes. People can waive a trial altogether, even a trial by judge. It has to be done in front of a judge, and is limited to that trial for that person.
replyUhh FalcoNet doesn't photograph cars. It snoops telecom traffic. And no, SCOTUS has certainly not found that the government is allowed to just arbitrarily snoop telecom traffic.
replydeleted
reply