3 ms·

My example wasn't rhetorical. Finding out political affiliations via these searches is exactly the concern. The problem is creating boundaries that prevent tha

My example wasn't rhetorical. Finding out political affiliations via these searches is exactly the concern. The problem is creating boundaries that prevent that kind of behavior from law enforcement. The article proposes that is too difficult and removing the tool is a better solution. Parallel evidence is a very very weird thing in police work IMHO. We give police incredible power with the only oversight being blocking evidence from court. As long as police are rarely punished for crossing lines we should minimize expanding their tooling whenever possible.

taeric 3y ago
You didn't give an example? Unless you mean the hypothetical at the top of searching for terrorist organizations? In which, my point against that is that scope of data returned should be considered. And I fully expect if you are sending money to a terrorist organization, that will not be "protected speech," despite money being fungible for speech... That is, the fact that so few accounts were hit by the warrant shows to me that it was a better warrant to grant. If you are wanting it codified that size of result list should be a consideration, for example, I would support that. If you are saying we need better controls, I'm all for it. To completely disallow this data, though, feels weirdly misguided. I'm guessing they have already run phone records for all calls to the residence that was burned, such that that is allowed with warrant. Why is the search extra protected? I'll again state that I'm all for strengthening privacy and security of people. I'm just not seeing this case being the place to make that battle. Nor do I think it is reasonable to make it illegal for police to get the data. If you want the data to not be used, I'd actually rather support making it illegal for companies to store it.

3 ms·

My example wasn't rhetorical. Finding out political affiliations via these searches is exactly the concern. The problem is creating boundaries that prevent tha

by Guvante 3y ago

taeric 3y ago
You didn't give an example? Unless you mean the hypothetical at the top of searching for terrorist organizations? In which, my point against that is that scope of data returned should be considered. And I fully expect if you are sending money to a terrorist organization, that will not be "protected speech," despite money being fungible for speech... That is, the fact that so few accounts were hit by the warrant shows to me that it was a better warrant to grant. If you are wanting it codified that size of result list should be a consideration, for example, I would support that. If you are saying we need better controls, I'm all for it. To completely disallow this data, though, feels weirdly misguided. I'm guessing they have already run phone records for all calls to the residence that was burned, such that that is allowed with warrant. Why is the search extra protected? I'll again state that I'm all for strengthening privacy and security of people. I'm just not seeing this case being the place to make that battle. Nor do I think it is reasonable to make it illegal for police to get the data. If you want the data to not be used, I'd actually rather support making it illegal for companies to store it.