4 ms·
The article convincingly describes some rather underhanded behavior by federal law enforcement appearing to violate 4th Amendment rights. Of course it's hard t
by jrapdx3 11y ago
The article convincingly describes some rather underhanded behavior by federal law enforcement appearing to violate 4th Amendment rights. Of course it's hard to empathize with criminals, well, because of their crimes. At the same time it's not hard to want to protect the rights of the people from overzealous police. It would be ideal for attorneys and other experts to comment on this case.
As portrayed in the article, an appellate court decision that the use of "Stringrays" requires a warrant before they are deployed would be a step in the right direction. I think there should be more restrictions on technologies that can grab thousands of communications at a time.
- throwaway_xx9 11y ago> Of course it's hard to empathize with criminals, well, because of their crimes. The accused in the American justice system is allowed a defense. Empathy has nothing to do with that right. Most people who are "criminals" were not convicted - they were plea-bargained. And many of those found guilty at trial were in fact innocent of any crime.
- beedogs 11y agoIt also kind of depends on the crime. I would have less of an issue with these sorts of devices being used in, say, a kidnapping investigation, than I would if they were used to catch street-level drug dealers.
- xbmcuser 11y agoDoes it really make a difference with or without warrant when police can ask secret courts etc to give judgements that can't be contested.