▲ 499 ▼ Supreme Court rules that broad cell phone location data sweeps require warrants (www.nbcnews.com) submitted 4 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago* (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (7 children) Are you asking for help understating what I wrote? Or do you think that sarcastically attacking strawmen of your own creation is an argument? Corrupt judges and bad decisions are why courts of appeal exist. These courts use multiple judges chosen at random specifically to prevent the kind of collusive behaviour that you're implying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (5 children) Yes, if the world were a John Grisham novel, some nefarious group could blackmail multiple judges across all levels of the appellate provesd, rig the system to ensure they're all assigned the case (by blackmailing the clerk of clurt) in order to ensure that they would have a chance to show illegally obtained location evidence to the jury, all 12 of whom are also blackmailed (why not?) to prove a person's phone was at a specific location. Do you have any other fantasy scenarios that need co-signing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (3 children) I'm talking about the location evidence that is the topic of the Supreme Court ruling linked in the OP of this thread where you're crafting your bad faith arguments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Lol I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (7 children) Are you asking for help understating what I wrote? Or do you think that sarcastically attacking strawmen of your own creation is an argument? Corrupt judges and bad decisions are why courts of appeal exist. These courts use multiple judges chosen at random specifically to prevent the kind of collusive behaviour that you're implying. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (5 children) Yes, if the world were a John Grisham novel, some nefarious group could blackmail multiple judges across all levels of the appellate provesd, rig the system to ensure they're all assigned the case (by blackmailing the clerk of clurt) in order to ensure that they would have a chance to show illegally obtained location evidence to the jury, all 12 of whom are also blackmailed (why not?) to prove a person's phone was at a specific location. Do you have any other fantasy scenarios that need co-signing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (3 children) I'm talking about the location evidence that is the topic of the Supreme Court ruling linked in the OP of this thread where you're crafting your bad faith arguments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Lol I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (5 children) Yes, if the world were a John Grisham novel, some nefarious group could blackmail multiple judges across all levels of the appellate provesd, rig the system to ensure they're all assigned the case (by blackmailing the clerk of clurt) in order to ensure that they would have a chance to show illegally obtained location evidence to the jury, all 12 of whom are also blackmailed (why not?) to prove a person's phone was at a specific location. Do you have any other fantasy scenarios that need co-signing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (3 children) I'm talking about the location evidence that is the topic of the Supreme Court ruling linked in the OP of this thread where you're crafting your bad faith arguments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Lol I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (5 children) Yes, if the world were a John Grisham novel, some nefarious group could blackmail multiple judges across all levels of the appellate provesd, rig the system to ensure they're all assigned the case (by blackmailing the clerk of clurt) in order to ensure that they would have a chance to show illegally obtained location evidence to the jury, all 12 of whom are also blackmailed (why not?) to prove a person's phone was at a specific location. Do you have any other fantasy scenarios that need co-signing? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (3 children) I'm talking about the location evidence that is the topic of the Supreme Court ruling linked in the OP of this thread where you're crafting your bad faith arguments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Lol I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (3 children) I'm talking about the location evidence that is the topic of the Supreme Court ruling linked in the OP of this thread where you're crafting your bad faith arguments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Lol I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (3 children) I'm talking about the location evidence that is the topic of the Supreme Court ruling linked in the OP of this thread where you're crafting your bad faith arguments. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Lol I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] Anonymous_Leaker@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Lol I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) Lol I argue in multiple tabs and sometimes get them mixed up as well. 🫡 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)