5 ms·

I'm not familiar with any such ruling. Which do you have in mind?

• boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Sorry, I'm basing this off other articles on this subject I've read recently but my 30 second search didn't locate them. The DoD has some reason to believe their interpretation is correct though, a law clarifying it's not would still be a good idea.
  • 1MachineElf 5y ago
    The pessimist in me wonders if Senator Wyden is being funded by a company who stands to gain when their competitor can no longer supply the Pentagon with surveillance data according to the letter of the law.
    • boomboomsubban 5y ago
      Three things on that. First, the law would just require a warrant before they get that data, there isn't really some other source that would benefit from it. Second, Wyden has been supportive of similar issues for years, not beyond suspicion but there should be some substance to any suspicion cast on him. And finally, I wouldn't care if Wyden was being paid to ensure that law enforcement needs a warrant. My cynical take is that Wyden is only allowed to make these press releases because both parties know that they are unlikely to become law. People get less upset knowing someone is pushing for the issues they care about even though the effort is futile.
• raincom 5y ago
  It is called "third-party doctrine". It is a loophole for "fourth amendment".