4 ms·

Pennsylvania High Court Rules Police Can Access Google Searches Without Warrant

7 points by imglorp 10mo ago

bediger4000 10mo ago
Shaving the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure paper thin. That's a problem with US jurisprudence. You may technically have a right, but the interpretation of the words are so odd, you practically don't have that right.
- imglorp 10mo ago
  The Bill of Rights was literally an afterthought.
  - bigbadfeline 10mo ago
    > The Bill of Rights was literally an afterthought. If we frame it as "an afterthought", it was the better thought and the most important one. The Bill of Rights was conceived as, and is, a fundamental part of the Constitution. Not to mention that it practically defines what America is and how it differs from the rest of the world, without it the US can only be a feudal state. There's no exaggeration in this, weakening the BoR is a rather transparent attempt to bring back feudalism cloaked in some sort of economic libertarianism.
  - bediger4000 10mo ago
    Constitution wasn't ratified until the bill of rights was added. What you've written is technically correct, but practically meaningless. But I see that you didn't refute my main point.
HardwareLust 10mo ago
The 4th Amendment might as well not exist at this point.
raincom 10mo ago
Third party doctrine is a loophole for the 4A: "The justices pointed to Google’s own privacy policy as a kind of consent form. “In the case before us, Google went beyond subtle indicators,” they wrote. “Google expressly informed its users that one should not expect any privacy when using its services.” The court took that disclosure, buried in the fine print of a sprawling legal document, as proof that users had signed away their Fourth Amendment rights."
morgan814 10mo ago
These judges are downright anti-American. I’m not particularly patriotic but this country wasn’t fought for and bled over so tyrants could abuse their power with loopholes.

7 points by imglorp 10mo ago

Shaving the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure paper thin. That's a problem with US jurisprudence. You may technically have a right, but the interpretation of the words are so odd, you practically don't have that right.

imglorp 10mo ago
The Bill of Rights was literally an afterthought.
- bigbadfeline 10mo ago
  > The Bill of Rights was literally an afterthought. If we frame it as "an afterthought", it was the better thought and the most important one. The Bill of Rights was conceived as, and is, a fundamental part of the Constitution. Not to mention that it practically defines what America is and how it differs from the rest of the world, without it the US can only be a feudal state. There's no exaggeration in this, weakening the BoR is a rather transparent attempt to bring back feudalism cloaked in some sort of economic libertarianism.
- bediger4000 10mo ago
  Constitution wasn't ratified until the bill of rights was added. What you've written is technically correct, but practically meaningless. But I see that you didn't refute my main point.

HardwareLust 10mo ago

The 4th Amendment might as well not exist at this point.

raincom 10mo ago

Third party doctrine is a loophole for the 4A: "The justices pointed to Google’s own privacy policy as a kind of consent form. “In the case before us, Google went beyond subtle indicators,” they wrote. “Google expressly informed its users that one should not expect any privacy when using its services.” The court took that disclosure, buried in the fine print of a sprawling legal document, as proof that users had signed away their Fourth Amendment rights."

morgan814 10mo ago

These judges are downright anti-American. I’m not particularly patriotic but this country wasn’t fought for and bled over so tyrants could abuse their power with loopholes.