4 ms·
If its only for a 35min window, I'd assume the FBI have good reason to want the data. It's right that a judge should rule on that, but this isn't warrant less o
by LatteLazy 5y ago
If its only for a 35min window, I'd assume the FBI have good reason to want the data. It's right that a judge should rule on that, but this isn't warrant less or mass surveillance.
- bassdropvroom 5y agoAgreed. This seems like a reasonable request to me, providing there is a warrant.
- enriquto 5y agoof course, all egregious erosions of freedom start, always, by presenting a reasonable case. That does not make them right.
- bassdropvroom 5y agoSo we shouldn't catch criminals then. By that logic, investigations, and evidence gathering for said investigations is not right either.
- enriquto 5y agoThere are very good reasons for evidence obtained by unlawful means to be ignored, even if it would help to catch a criminal.
- jokethrowaway 5y agoI never understood why that's the case. Is it not to encourage unlawful activity? Stealing an example from mr robot, if I break into someone's computer and find evidence that proves they are trafficking underage photos, I don't see why that proof should be ignored , in any circumstances. Sure, charge me as well with breaking into someone's computer, if you can catch me, but don't dismiss my evidence.
- kian 5y agoIt is to discourage unlawful activity on the part of law enforcement.
- bassdropvroom 5y agoSure, and that's probably best. In my original comment, I specifically mentioned that what the FBI is asking for is reasonable providing there is a warrant, which would imply that they're gathering evidence lawfully.
- webreac 5y agoI prefer to have clearly identified and clearly limited exceptions to my rights, rather than a large scale violation of our rights, hidden with lies.
- LatteLazy 5y agoThat is true, but it does not follow that all reasonable cases will develop into egregious ones...
- jokethrowaway 5y agoI think the main problem is that we allow the justice system to step on private companies. I think the company owning the data should be able to decide whether to give the data and aid the investigation or not (which is something that affect their reputation and that they can tell their customers, either as an advantage or a disadvantage)
- redis_mlc 5y ago> If its only for a 35min window, I'd assume the FBI have good reason to want the data. Parallel reconstruction? (A commenter mentioned Tor.) > this isn't warrant less or mass surveillance. They haven't provided a reason as expected for a warrant, and a dragnet is mass surveillance.
- Tycho 5y agoBut it’s the thin end of the wedge. No doubt we will evolve towards blanket tracing of anyone who accesses news stories on a particular topic, creating grounds to investigate or detain people on grounds of “domestic terrorism” or whatever.
- LatteLazy 5y agoI mean, we already do all that. But I don't personally think it is the thin end of a wedge. There is a big difference between asking for everyone accessing the story and a limited 35min window. As big as asking to search one house vs a whole street. It gers messy where exactly the line is, but that's why we have judges...
- Tycho 5y agoJudges have not prevented our relentless slide into a panopticonal hellscape up til now, I don’t have high hopes for their future guardianship of privacy and freedom.
- LatteLazy 5y agoI'm disappointed judges have refused to touch the NSA etc stuff. But historically they have taken privacy seriously. The more cynical part of me also thinks that we're getting all the downsides of the panopticon, so why not at least get the upsides too (in this case better law enforcement)...
- epage 5y agoWhat I don't understand is why is reading a news article relevant to a case?
- diplodocusaur 5y agomaybe they seized property with browsing history
- aszantu 5y agoI'd reason, there's a chance that child molesters might share with each other and might connect the readers that way. If they have some data on a suspect but aren't sure yet?
- LatteLazy 5y agoImagine there is a misprint in the version online for those 35min. And your suspect quoted the misprint...