SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Federal court rules geofence warrants are unconstitutional:
In another round of increasingly rare good news in the realm of privacy, individual rights and freedom, two separate US federal judges have found geofence warrants to be unconstitutional.
Geofence warrants have been around for some time now. Essentially, it's a new investigative technique wherein law enforcement, rather than surveilling a suspect to discover if they had been at the scene of a crime, they work backwards by identifying everyone that's been at a particular location and surveilling them until they discover which one of them is a possible suspect.
[...] US courts have recently begun accepting that our smartphones hold so much data about us that they should be protected by the fourth amendment, as an extension of our homes.
Three separate unsealed opinions from two federal magistrate judges have come to the same conclusion: that these warrants lack the probable cause and particularity requirements of the fourth amendment.
[...] It's disturbing to think of just how many Americans' constitutional rights would have been violated if the warrant was granted. Even more disturbing is other such warrants possibly getting granted regularly, aside from what information Google willingly hands over to governments.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 03 2020, @07:53PM (1 child)
You do realize that there is not a simple, easy, answer to your question, right? Unless, of course, you want or need to take the path of least resistance.
You know the system is screwed up, if not outright dirty. You know the city/county/state/in_this_case_township is in it for the money. We can put aside any attempt to justify "the system", since we agree on that much. You ask "Do you really want me to go all in Snowden over the fucking tree?"
I think we can agree, it's not about the tree, at all. You apparently like the tree a little bit, but you can surrender the tree.
Then, you ask, "Imagine a poor negro who is in similar situations all the time, has no money to pay,"
I can imagine that poor negro, just as I can imagine some poor Mexican, or white guy. Color plays a role in police interactions, but there are poor people of all colors taken advantage of, every day.
And, I will state that by not fighting an unjust government action, you might be letting down all those poor people. Your post seems to suggest that you can afford to challenge the township, rather than take the path of least resistance. Challenging a broken system just might result in the system being - well, maybe not made entirely right, but made a little more right.
If you dig deep enough into the BLM/Antifa protests, you can find a message that all white people are guilty, because we don't fight injustices. I dispute the manner in which they make that point, but there is the underlying point. All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is that good people do nothing.
I've made some attempt to say the same thing, when I condemn not only dirty cops, but those otherwise good cops who shield the dirty cop.
Should you have fought city hall, over a tree? Maybe you should have. You failed to expose a corrupt system, so you share responsibility for the next victim, and the next, and the next.
So, that shit gets complicated, right?
The neighbor? Going after him seems a bit petty. If he's a constantly annoying asshole, I might go after him. I don't know what I would do in the situation, because I don't know him, I don't know you beyond what you write here. You have to make up your own mind about making him pay. You're smart enough to get all of your ducks in a row before you try anything like that, I presume. But, don't be surprised if the neighbor "fights dirty". You best not have a cracked tail light lens, or trash accumulated in your rain gutters, or ever be recorded arguing with the spouse or kids.
To put things in perspective, financially: I am most certainly not destitute, like the "poor negro" you cite. But, I'm obviously not as wealthy as you - I can't "just forgetaboutit" when it comes to $2500. There have been times that I followed the easiest course, and just paid an unjust ticket. Other times, I have fought the unjust ticket or accusation. I never succeeded in exposing a corrupt system, but I have managed to embarrass a couple of people.
BTW - you know where you erred, I'm sure, but I'll point it out anyway. "I ignored the order and was sued by the township." You don't win battles by fighting reactively. You should have been proactive, and sued the city before they sued you. You waited far too long to get legal representation, if you wanted to keep your tree, or if you wanted to expose the screwed up system.
(Score: 2) by legont on Friday September 04 2020, @04:20PM
I generally agree with you except one but perhaps the most important point. I don't believe any more that individual actions can change anything at this point. I believe there will be blood. Civil war in worst case. The best case scenario is shock therapy Pinochet style. I make my plans according to this beliefs.
I already escaped one of those once less that two months before it happened and I hope to make it again. One might say that this experience affects my judgement, that I am too pessimistic and it's not that bad. I really really hope so. I pray every day that I am wrong, but I prepare for what I think will happen.
What's really sad is that since I am old and therefore is not expected to make more but have to live on savings, Pinochet is my best friend from pure economic point of vew. I am sure many others see it this way. I't so so morally wrong, but that' the reality.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.