3 ms·
Sounds reasonable. A warrant should be needed to query the data, but collecting it in the first place should be unrestricted.
by vvovo 4y ago
Sounds reasonable. A warrant should be needed to query the data, but collecting it in the first place should be unrestricted.
- LatteLazy 4y ago>I'm putting a camera up in your bathroom, but don't worry, no one will look...
- halJordan 4y agoThis describes all lawful intercept. The only thing keeping the police from going through your phone calls rn is a warrant.
- superkuh 4y agoExcept that it doesn't actually keep them from doing it unlawfully. As long as they believe they're acting within the law (despite being wrong) they can do it with no consequences.
- nhchris 4y agoIncorrect. They need a warrant to (legally) even collect phone call audio - they can't tap your line ahead of time, and then get a warrant when they want to listen to the recordings. Unless you meant the metadata of who you called. But that's not the police collecting that data, but the phone company doing it voluntarily for billing purposes. If the company didn't keep those records, the police couldn't (legally) compel them to without a warrant.
- monetus 4y agoI think the legal position is that only data access requires a warrant, not data retention. The in.es.ā. argues this, local police don't have that access - they buy things like location data on the private market though
- nhchris 4y agoYes, that was the NSA's argument, but I'm unaware of any court buying it.
- vvovo 4y agoCamera in bathroom is like having targeted implant on your phone or computer. Whereas, this mass surveillance is more like putting cameras on some public sewer tunnels to see what passes through the pipes. And then 99.999% of the time not checking the recording before it gets wiped.