| ▲ | tiahura 5 days ago |
| How do you know there wasn’t a warrant? |
|
| ▲ | lordhumphrey 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Whether an action has gotten a legal thumbs-up or not is of little relevance here. I'd like to leave the question of why that's true as an exercise for the reader, but your comment makes it sound as if you have trouble with this concept, so let's be explicit - a state operating autocratically can, and often will, rubberstamp whatever it decides it wants to do. Had a quick look for the numbers from FISA to give you an example of this. https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2013/06/fisa-co... says that they denied 11 requests for surveillance warrants out of 33,900 requests over 33 years of operation. That's a pass rate of 99.07%! So allow me to say - a warrant wouldn't have changed anything, they give them out like nothing. In the article though, it does say: "ICE did not respond to requests for comment from SAN. It is not clear whether ICE or any other law enforcement agency obtained a warrant to use an IMSI catcher — commonly referred to as a “Stingray” — to conduct surveillance." |
| |
| ▲ | Levitz 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >Whether an action has gotten a legal thumbs-up or not is of little relevance here. On the contrary, I don't think there's anything more relevant. That such action can be legal speaks volumes about the state of what is legal and tolerated within the US. This, like pretty much everything about the current administration, is not explicitly about Trump, but something that has been cooking for at the very least the past two decades. | | |
| ▲ | anecdatas 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It's relevant in the sense of "is this an indicator of increasing autocracy" but not relevant in the sense of "does the presence of the warrant indicate this is ok". I think the parent poster is saying that the present of a warrant does not make the action not autocratic. And you are disagreeing with a different idea (that the presence of a warrant doesn't matter at all), by saying it does matter, but in the opposite way -- if a warrant is present that indicates the state is losing checks and balances. |
| |
| ▲ | smcin 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 99.967% | |
| ▲ | taeric 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean... I get paranoia, but this is arguing that an audit trail is not useful? That is, a high pass rate could also indicate that it is a well functioning system with few spurious requests and none that are lacking required information. Does requiring a warrant guarantee best behavior? No. But it does provide a solid path for accountability and a path to codify better rules, when abused. | |
| ▲ | tiahura 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It seems like it would be hard to make pronouncements about the error rate without knowing the actual rate of unsupportable requests? Moreover, you’re referencing FISA warrants which are so unlike typical warrants that constructing arguments based on FISA practice is risky. Point me to an article if I’m wrong, but I haven’t heard even a single credible rumor that these Stingrays aren’t being used for exactly what authorities say they are - trying to find particular individuals is a general area. Have you heard of whistleblower accounts or accidentally leaked details about large scale storage ordata mining of location data from Stingrays? If your argument is simply that law enforcement agencies don’t have the right to conduct a dragnet when pursuing a fugitive murderer, as is the case here, you’re going to need something more persuasive than a rant against authoritarianism. |
|
|
| ▲ | perihelions 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It'd be flatly unconstitutional to approve a dragnet warrant targeting a protest. |
| |
| ▲ | dmix 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | They wouldn't necessarily be targeting the whole protest, the IMSI catcher would work broadly and from that the warrant would require them to narrow down to one and ignore rest. Unless I misunderstood the technical details the parent comment posted. This broad dragnet nature of Stingray collection has always been why it's been a major privacy issue. Like doing a wiretap by tapping the whole neighbourhood and filtering phone calls for a certain address. | |
| ▲ | cosmicgadget 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | After reading Kavanaugh's latest concurrence I am not so sure. | | |
| ▲ | Yeul 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Whoever thought it was a good idea to let a president appoint the supreme court was a naive fool. | | |
| ▲ | dylan604 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Appoint, yet still needing Senate approval is probably what made this palatable to the founding fathers. I'm guessing the old white dudes in wigs never thought that the Senate would abdicate its role by become subservient to one old dude if not in a powdered wig at least in powdered face | |
| ▲ | smcin 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But the Senate Judiciary Ctte and then the full Senate get to vote. Remember Kavanaugh's confirmation vote in 2018 was 50-48, Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted against, Susan Collins for, Joe Manchin (D-WV) also for [0]. Susan Collins' reluctant-voice-of-moderation act has run out of steam, finally, probably decades overdue [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_... | | |
| ▲ | Yeul 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Unfortunately American politics has completely deteriorated to a civil war between red and blue. Which I suppose is another thing that was predicted but not acted upon: the establishment of political parties. |
| |
| ▲ | vkou 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Given that the Supreme Court has managed to appoint[1] two presidents in the past thirty years, I'd say that the Gordian knot has tightened. [1] Bush 2000, and less directly but far more dangerously, by making Trump unprosecutable in the run-up to 2024. |
|
| |
| ▲ | tiahura 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | In a recently-unsealed search warrant reviewed by Forbes, ICE used such a cell-site simulator in an attempt to track down an individual in Orem, Utah. Maybe you missed it when you read the article? | | |
|
|
| ▲ | vkou 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When you treat with someone you know to be a compulsive liar, the onus of proof is on them. If this government has not proven that they had one, you'd be mad to trust that they did. There are no consequences to it for lying, or for not following the law, or not acting in good faith. It has a well-documented history of doing all three, and is headed by a convicted criminal. |
|
| ▲ | analognoise 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Can we stop sanewashing these people? They clearly don't care for legality, constitutionality, anything positive or good. |
| |
| ▲ | tiahura 4 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Refreeze5224 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Please argue in good faith. "Just because xyz" is not. It's asking to ignore tons of evidence and explicit speech to the contrary. | |
| ▲ | vharuck 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is an administration that once had a man who, during a meeting about deportations attended by department lawyers, in response to what would be done if the courts rejected their rationale, said "Fuck the courts." This man is no longer part of the administration. But not because he was fired for this blatant disregard for the judicial branch. It's because he was nominated to be a judge (and the Senate confirmed him). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | throwawayq3423 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| A warrant for several thousand people at a spontaneous event ? |
