3 ms·

fluidcruft is not wrong about this particular point. And even if they were, while you may disagree passionately with the state of the law today, that doesn't gi

fluidcruft is not wrong about this particular point. And even if they were, while you may disagree passionately with the state of the law today, that doesn't give you the right to be a dick to them about their analysis. Knock it off.

estearum 2mo ago
1. Yes, they are wrong. For example, Dobbs sat downstream of generations of people perpetuating the idea that the law already bans abortion (under murder statutes) and that the Constitution already prevents the federal government from regulating this area. Regardless of whether that's true or not, what is plainly true is that whenever possible, people prefer to frame their preferred policies as already existing in statute and case law. People saying "Hmm yes, it does" is obviously beneficial to their cause. People saying "Hmm no, it doesn't" are harmful to their cause. There are cases where it's legitimately ambiguous as to where the law lands and this is one of those areas, but fluidcruft is insisting that it's not. To the extent it's not ambiguous, recent case law, the overarching history of the 4th Amendment literally since its ratification, and common sense all point in the same direction: the government cannot arbitrarily monitor everyone's movements (even in public) at near-zero cost with zero warrant. 2. There's nothing dickish in my prior comment whatsoever.
- otterley 2mo ago
  > It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text What’s wrong with this? It’s correct that there’s been no case yet on the legality of warrantless end-to-end surveillance technology, and he’s right that the Constitution has no explicit privacy right. Certainly no lawyer I know would advise their client otherwise, and as an attorney myself, I wouldn’t do it, either. > There's nothing dickish in my prior comment When someone tells you you’re being dickish, pay attention and take it seriously. They are giving you valuable feedback about how you are coming across. Even if you don’t intend to be that way, and don’t think you are, others can still see it. You need to take that into consideration. In this case, saying that a wannabe dictator would use the same argument was pretty dickish, particularly in the context of everything you’ve already said to them. It’s well past the time to lower the temperature of this discussion. Don’t keep it on simmer.
  - estearum 2mo ago
    The central claim of the quoted text, and the claim that I'm obviously responding to, is "It's actually far more dangerous to..." If it were more dangerous to insist that these privacy rights already exist (which they do, at least since Katz), then a wannabe dictator would obviously just insist that these privacy rights exist. But... they obviously wouldn't do that. They'd in fact insist that these rights don't exist, they never have, and they're not in the text of the Constitution. Referencing the desires of a wannabe dictator is not dickish in the context of a conversation about state surveillance powers. Perhaps you're getting too heated and reading tone into other people's words at this point?
    - otterley 2mo ago
      My interpretation of what they said is that it’s dangerous to make the assumption that the 4th Amendment will cause the exclusion of evidence yielded by ALPRs if the question is adjudicated today, based on current law. I agree with this, and as an attorney myself, I would not make this assumption. > Referencing the desires of a wannabe dictator is not dickish in the context of a conversation about state surveillance powers. I disagree. Again, it matters less what you think and more what impression you leave, especially in the greater context of everything else you’ve said in this discussion.
      - estearum 2mo ago
        I am extremely doubtful the intention of that comment was, "if I were adjudicating a case, my strategy would be X." Obviously your legal strategy wouldn't rest on this assumption. But we're not talking about legal strategies to bring to the courtroom. By analogy, it is absolutely true that a person has a right to self-defense. People in common dialogue should insist on this being actually true. Does that mean your lawyer should go into a courtroom with the strategy of simply insisting that's the case? No, obviously. The invocation of Dobbs is clearly referencing a political strategy and not a trial strategy. I am responding (quite clearly) to the proposed political strategy, while you are reading it as a trial strategy.

estearum 2mo ago

1. Yes, they are wrong. For example, Dobbs sat downstream of generations of people perpetuating the idea that the law already bans abortion (under murder statutes) and that the Constitution already prevents the federal government from regulating this area. Regardless of whether that's true or not, what is plainly true is that whenever possible, people prefer to frame their preferred policies as already existing in statute and case law. People saying "Hmm yes, it does" is obviously beneficial to their cause. People saying "Hmm no, it doesn't" are harmful to their cause. There are cases where it's legitimately ambiguous as to where the law lands and this is one of those areas, but fluidcruft is insisting that it's not. To the extent it's not ambiguous, recent case law, the overarching history of the 4th Amendment literally since its ratification, and common sense all point in the same direction: the government cannot arbitrarily monitor everyone's movements (even in public) at near-zero cost with zero warrant. 2. There's nothing dickish in my prior comment whatsoever.

otterley 2mo ago
> It's actually far more dangerous to presume we are already protected (your position) particularly based on reading tea leaves in flimsy ancillary opinions when the Court has shown itself fully happy to blow precedent out of the water, particularly with regards to privacy rights which are grounded in interpretation of the Constitution and not actual text What’s wrong with this? It’s correct that there’s been no case yet on the legality of warrantless end-to-end surveillance technology, and he’s right that the Constitution has no explicit privacy right. Certainly no lawyer I know would advise their client otherwise, and as an attorney myself, I wouldn’t do it, either. > There's nothing dickish in my prior comment When someone tells you you’re being dickish, pay attention and take it seriously. They are giving you valuable feedback about how you are coming across. Even if you don’t intend to be that way, and don’t think you are, others can still see it. You need to take that into consideration. In this case, saying that a wannabe dictator would use the same argument was pretty dickish, particularly in the context of everything you’ve already said to them. It’s well past the time to lower the temperature of this discussion. Don’t keep it on simmer.
- estearum 2mo ago
  The central claim of the quoted text, and the claim that I'm obviously responding to, is "It's actually far more dangerous to..." If it were more dangerous to insist that these privacy rights already exist (which they do, at least since Katz), then a wannabe dictator would obviously just insist that these privacy rights exist. But... they obviously wouldn't do that. They'd in fact insist that these rights don't exist, they never have, and they're not in the text of the Constitution. Referencing the desires of a wannabe dictator is not dickish in the context of a conversation about state surveillance powers. Perhaps you're getting too heated and reading tone into other people's words at this point?
  - otterley 2mo ago
    My interpretation of what they said is that it’s dangerous to make the assumption that the 4th Amendment will cause the exclusion of evidence yielded by ALPRs if the question is adjudicated today, based on current law. I agree with this, and as an attorney myself, I would not make this assumption. > Referencing the desires of a wannabe dictator is not dickish in the context of a conversation about state surveillance powers. I disagree. Again, it matters less what you think and more what impression you leave, especially in the greater context of everything else you’ve said in this discussion.
    - estearum 2mo ago
      I am extremely doubtful the intention of that comment was, "if I were adjudicating a case, my strategy would be X." Obviously your legal strategy wouldn't rest on this assumption. But we're not talking about legal strategies to bring to the courtroom. By analogy, it is absolutely true that a person has a right to self-defense. People in common dialogue should insist on this being actually true. Does that mean your lawyer should go into a courtroom with the strategy of simply insisting that's the case? No, obviously. The invocation of Dobbs is clearly referencing a political strategy and not a trial strategy. I am responding (quite clearly) to the proposed political strategy, while you are reading it as a trial strategy.