3 ms·
In other words, they may have turned off 3,000 devices the day the Supreme Court issued its ruling, but they turned about 2,750 of them back on soon afterwards.
by joering2 15y ago
In other words, they may have turned off 3,000 devices the day the Supreme Court issued its ruling, but they turned about 2,750 of them back on soon afterwards.
Truly Wild Wild West. Nothing will teach them that there need to stay under the law just like anyone else.
Mr. Meuller: why don't we go one step further; how about proposal to build safe and secure prisons and just simply lock everyone in??!! Won't that actually stop every possible crime from happening?? I mean: all the thefts, murders, rapes, it all can be avoid and stopped if you kindly please lock us all in!
also my other comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3635602 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3635602
- mikeash 15y agoMaybe I misunderstand the point of your comment, but they turned 2,750 of them back on because they were able to obtain warrants for those permitting them to continue the surveillance. There's nothing illegal about that, and it shows they're sticking to the new ruling and to the law.
- joering2 15y agoso what was the purpose of all this circus that me and you had pay for from our taxes if FBI already been working on the back to obtain the permits?
- mhurron 15y agoThe purpose was to require and remind the FBI that they too have to follow the law of the land. They should have had to get a warrant before they put any tracking device anywhere (and I'm willing to bet they knew that) and they should have been smacked down for every instance where they didn't.
- mikeash 15y agoThere's the ~250 or so that they had to turn off permanently because they couldn't get warrants for them, presumably because they could not show probable cause.
- Drbble 15y agoFBI not wasting resources pursuing non-suspects would save tax money too.