text0404

4 ms·

1.
by text0404 8d ago
No it isn't, you just refuse to read the report or any of the other links I've posted. They have a word for what you're doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
2.
by text0404 8d ago
There doesn't need to be an admission of guilt to determine that the US acted in violation of international law. If you'd like to learn more about the methodology, feel free to read the article or the report.
3.
by text0404 8d ago
That evidence is once again in the report which I linked and the statements of the DoD and Hegseth himself. If you want aerial imagery or the full text of the interviews, you'll have to obtain it yourself because it wasn't include
4.
by text0404 8d ago
This has to be a troll. You're literally replying in a comment thread where I've already summarized the material findings that you're asking for (it's from the article we're discussing). I then pasted links to the r
5.
by text0404 8d ago
We're discussing the article that summarizes the report's findings, but sure. Please refer to the report [1] and read the following sections (they are too long to paste here): - II (full section) - IV.B.1 (full section) - IV.B.2.8
6.
by text0404 8d ago
I'm sorry you feel that way. Feel free to refute the substance of what I've said.
7.
by text0404 8d ago
Because the human rights chief has a lifetime of experience and credentials to be able to make these determinations [1], whereas Hegseth and Trump do not. Furthermore, Hegseth has stated repeatedly that the US military should ignore rules o
8.
by text0404 9d ago
That article from March doesn't refute what the UN stated in its report today: > The UN mission concluded that the strike on Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school constituted an indiscriminate attack causing civilian deaths and damage to
9.
by text0404 9d ago
They did try to evacuate. The building was hit while they were doing so: > Hundreds of students are believed to have been inside the building by the time teachers and administrators received the news that bombs had begun falling on Teh
10.
by text0404 9d ago
Which is why the US famously won the Vietnam war...
11.
by text0404 9d ago
TFA addresses this. It doesn't matter if it was a "mistake": the US acted recklessly "[amounting] to more than mere negligence," even when warned by their own commanders. Ignorance doesn't excuse crimes. > T
12.
by text0404 9d ago
You seem to be confusing everyone's stances (incompetence vs malice). Some people in this thread believe it was incompetence and therefore not a war crime, and others believe it was malicious and therefore a war crime. I personally don
13.
by text0404 16d ago
Except what I'm discussing is why the court went with that decision and how that reasoning applies to modern technology like Flock cameras. Your original argument was that cameras are in public and location data is private and includes
14.
by text0404 16d ago
The legal reasoning I'm referring to is quite clear, even if it wasn't part of the court's final decision (it was part of the concurrence, though, which are also used in legal arguments): > A person does not surrender all
15.
by text0404 16d ago
You're focused on the narrowness of the final ruling and not the vast legal reasoning that led to it. Carpenter's reasoning concerning comprehensive records of an individual's movements (regardless of private or public) are r
16.
by text0404 16d ago
I'm not talking about the specific ruling, I'm quoting the justification that the justices used in coming to that ruling, which is extremely relevant to modern day surveillance and whether LE using surveillance cameras from a thir
17.
by text0404 17d ago
As I quoted before: > A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitut
18.
by text0404 17d ago
Carpenter is saying that public movements are part of the protected interest, not just the private movements which were also tracked. If the private movements hadn't been tracked in those cases, it would still be a 4A issue: "A
19.
by text0404 17d ago
I'm not claiming Jones held that cops need a warrant to visually follow someone on a public street. The point you're avoiding is that Carpenter expressly cited Jones for the proposition that people have a fourth amendment interest
20.
by text0404 17d ago
You're confusing the technology used in Jones with the principle Carpenter cited it for: a person can have a 4A privacy interest in the whole of their physical movements, including movements in public.
21.
by text0404 17d ago
Carpenter was not about who owned the data or the technology being used but rather the government reconstructing a person's movements over time, including movements occurring in public. The fact that the data is owned by a private comp
22.
by text0404 17d ago
The specific technology being used to conduct the searches does not matter . Persistent technological tracking of a person's public movements can constitute a search. The fact that each individual movement occurs in public does not au
23.
by text0404 17d ago
Just because the specific ALPR technology was not being litigated doesn't mean that the law doesn't apply to similar technologies. At issue here is the government being able to monitor and track people in public, not that photogra
24.
by text0404 17d ago
They haven't yet because a case hasn't made its way to the SC. But Chatrie and Carpenter deal with this exact subject matter and both establish that aggregating and searching past data is a (fourth amendment) search.
25.
by text0404 17d ago
> Jesus, how many times are you just going to parrot the same replies over and over The same amount that you do, dude. You're in every single one of these threads, and despite being proven wrong over and over again you keep being &q
26.
by text0404 17d ago
The SC's holding was that the government's acquisition of location data from a third party was itself a fourth amendment search because the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy wrt location data. So you're kind
27.
by text0404 17d ago
That precedence-setting decision would be Carpenter v US [1], which established that being in public does not automatically eliminate all fourth amendment protection, and the comprehensive nature of government surveillance can matter consti
28.
by text0404 17d ago
Law enforcement is using a third party (Flock) to get around constitutional requirements. A camera pointed at a public street isn't the same constitutional question as LE searching a persistent database to reconstruct someone's mo
29.
by text0404 17d ago
You keep missing that these aren't singular photographs. This isn't the 70s: these are persistent systems that aggregate video and photographs of everyone, tracking their movements over time. That is enough to make this constituti
30.
by text0404 17d ago
They need a warrant if they're going to record and track my movements over the course of months.

More ›