2 ms·

I'm confused how anyone would think a keyword warrant was constitutionally ok. Curious what the argument looks like. I don't see how it passes tests for "unrea

by tyingq 5y ago

I'm confused how anyone would think a keyword warrant was constitutionally ok. Curious what the argument looks like. I don't see how it passes tests for "unreasonable" or "broad".

t-writescode 5y ago
People who do these things don't think about the constitutionality and are decidedly "ends justify the means".
- tyingq 5y ago
  They do have have to get a judge to sign it though. So presumably the judge at least thinks about the implications.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - ectopod 5y ago
    I imagine that a randomly chosen judge would, but I don't imagine that the FBI gets their dodgy warrants signed by a randomly chosen judge.
Lendal 5y ago
The article does say "specific addresses and phone numbers." So if a legal warrant can be issued for police to stake out a specific address, or wiretap a specific phone number, why would it be worse to have another legal warrant for asking Google for information about searches for that same address or phone number?
- tyingq 5y ago
  I suppose because searches sometimes feel partially like thoughts and partially like actions. They also mentioned "names" and not just phone numbers. In any case, names/phone numbers/addresses are often ambiguous, so it's trawling in things that don't feel like probable cause. There's also a screenshot of one warranted search in the article that had no names/addresses/phone numbers. They wanted everyone that searched for combinations of "cardboard", "bomb", etc: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/10/06/15/48837793-10063665-The_most_sweeping_federal_keyword_warrant_made_public_was_a_keyw-a-7_1633530996145.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/10/06/15/48837793-10063665... That's very "thought crime" to me. Pre-internet, it feels like a warrant for anyone that ran their finger down page xyz of the phone book.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    > Pre-internet, it feels like a warrant for anyone that ran their finger down page xyz of the phone book. More like inquiring for / looking at certain books in the library. Which is something I'm sure happened all the time, historically.
    - tyingq 5y ago
      >in the library Maybe, if "in the library" means "in almost every library in the nation for each warrant".
      - mywittyname 5y ago
        Sure, but it is still possible. Libraries are historically very well organized. It would be completely feasible to have libraries send over the names of people who checked out certain books on some regular cadence. The Dewey Decimal system already classifies every book by topic, so it would be practical to document every person that checked out a book under, for example, 662 Explosives, Fuels.

by tyingq 5y ago

I'm confused how anyone would think a keyword warrant was constitutionally ok. Curious what the argument looks like. I don't see how it passes tests for "unreasonable" or "broad".

t-writescode 5y ago

People who do these things don't think about the constitutionality and are decidedly "ends justify the means".

tyingq 5y ago
They do have have to get a judge to sign it though. So presumably the judge at least thinks about the implications.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ectopod 5y ago
  I imagine that a randomly chosen judge would, but I don't imagine that the FBI gets their dodgy warrants signed by a randomly chosen judge.

Lendal 5y ago

The article does say "specific addresses and phone numbers." So if a legal warrant can be issued for police to stake out a specific address, or wiretap a specific phone number, why would it be worse to have another legal warrant for asking Google for information about searches for that same address or phone number?

tyingq 5y ago
I suppose because searches sometimes feel partially like thoughts and partially like actions. They also mentioned "names" and not just phone numbers. In any case, names/phone numbers/addresses are often ambiguous, so it's trawling in things that don't feel like probable cause. There's also a screenshot of one warranted search in the article that had no names/addresses/phone numbers. They wanted everyone that searched for combinations of "cardboard", "bomb", etc: https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/10/06/15/48837793-10063665-The_most_sweeping_federal_keyword_warrant_made_public_was_a_keyw-a-7_1633530996145.jpg https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/10/06/15/48837793-10063665... That's very "thought crime" to me. Pre-internet, it feels like a warrant for anyone that ran their finger down page xyz of the phone book.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  > Pre-internet, it feels like a warrant for anyone that ran their finger down page xyz of the phone book. More like inquiring for / looking at certain books in the library. Which is something I'm sure happened all the time, historically.
  - tyingq 5y ago
    >in the library Maybe, if "in the library" means "in almost every library in the nation for each warrant".
    - mywittyname 5y ago
      Sure, but it is still possible. Libraries are historically very well organized. It would be completely feasible to have libraries send over the names of people who checked out certain books on some regular cadence. The Dewey Decimal system already classifies every book by topic, so it would be practical to document every person that checked out a book under, for example, 662 Explosives, Fuels.