4 ms·

I don't know why the article says the recipient of a search warrant for stored communications can't challenge it prior to disclosure. They can, and often do, es

I don't know why the article says the recipient of a search warrant for stored communications can't challenge it prior to disclosure. They can, and often do, especially on the grounds of lack of particularity or undue burden. As an example, Google claims that of all search warrants received by them for user data in 2024, they disclosed data for 90% of them, not 100%. I also feel like the article generally misrepresents the entire American legal system, since the system itself does not really prevent the cops from doing the bad things, but instead tries to say that the result of the bad thing cannot be used as evidence. So it really isn't structured to ensure that the cops can't get your voice mails. It is structured such that if the cops improperly accessed your voice mails that can't be used against you in court.

w10-1 1y ago
> It is structured such that if the cops improperly accessed your voice mails that can't be used against you in court Yes, it's true that illegally obtained evidence can be excluded. But warrants -- prior authorization -- are required for searches. The law is structured to prevent both use and gathering if improper. (Whether warrant practice is effective at prevention is another question.)
- 0manrho 1y ago
  > But warrants -- prior authorization -- are required for searches. Required in what sense? In that they're unable to perform those searches by some mechanism preventing them from doing it outright? Or just that there are consequences if they do? If the latter, we immediately jump into "It's only illegal if I get caught" territory.