It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jenna
Reply to post by Shar
So we should just ignore when judges give them permission because it's going to happen anyway?
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
I'm honestly amazed that here, of all places on the internet, people have no problems with the government being given free reign to add their own gps device to your car and track you for any reason without a warrant in your own driveway no less. Really and truly amazed.
Originally posted by Shar
now that you woke up what are you going to do about it?
again i did not give them permission to take my photo at every street corner, or because i go into a store, etc.....but it happens dont it?
i mean come on no we didnt give them this right or we didnt think we did...but they took it anyways
The needs of law enforcement, to which my colleagues seem inclined to refuse nothing, are quickly making personal privacy a distant memory. 1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it’s here at last.
Originally posted by justinsweatt
There's that whole thing of getting a warrant and establishing probable cause. Seriously? You don't see a problem with this? And what's going to happen when they start writing laws that you don't know about? The whole "I abide by the law, I have nothing to worry about" is a VERY slippery slope.
Einstein said it: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
Originally posted by Aggie Man
This technology is nothing new and it doesn't bother me, as I am a law abiding citizen.
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Jenna
Good catch. S&F.
Well, these dickwads called it like it is:
Only the rich have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Good for Kozinski for dissenting.
The article states, and I agree, that this will likely end up before the Supreme Court eventually. I just hope they have the brains required to overturn this ruling.
Of the 80 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through opinions, 56 cases arose from the federal appellate courts, three from the federal district courts, and 21 from the state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 40 of the 56 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 71%), two of the three judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 67%), and 17 of the 21 judgments issued by state courts (or 81%).
Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court’s unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit’s rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts.
But the 9th Circuit's record this term, with 94 percent of its cases reversed at least in part, extends a long-running trend of being disproportionately overturned. The appeals court -- the only one where a majority of judges were appointed by Democratic presidents -- has had a larger-than-average share of its cases overturned in eight of the past 10 years. Read more: www.post-gazette.com...