There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Colorado court upholds Google keyword search warrant which led to arrests in fatal arson

Colorado upheld a warrant’s reverse keyword search for directions to a house. They claim the search warrant, which was overly broad and without individual probable cause, did not violate Google’s millions of US users’ fourth amendment protections, because the court said the police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

One of them, Gavin Seymour, asked the court to throw the evidence out because it violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures by being overbroad and not being targeted against a specific person suspected of a crime.

But in this case, the trail had run cold and police were seeking a “reverse keyword” warrant for the Google search history in a quest to identify possible suspects.

The state Supreme Court ruled that Seymour had a constitutionally protected privacy interest in his Google search history even though it was just connected with an IP address and not his name.

If dystopian problems emerge, as some fear, the courts stand ready to hear argument regarding how we should rein in law enforcement’s use of rapidly advancing technology.

“At the risk of sounding alarmist, I fear that by upholding this practice, the majority’s ruling today gives constitutional cover to law enforcement seeking unprecedented access to the private lives of individuals not just in Colorado, but across the globe.

A third teen, Dillon Siebert, who was 14 at the time and originally charged as a juvenile, pleaded guilty earlier this year to second-degree murder in adult court under a deal that prosecutors and the defense said balanced his lesser role in planning the fire, his remorse and interest in rehabilitation with the horror of the crime.

The original article contains 783 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 71%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

nottheengineer ,

I don’t have any hope for any of this improving.

The EU is currently working on legislation to search through all chat messages sent by everyone ever, so the only way to keep any privacy is to take it into your own hands.

SilentCal OP ,

Terrible minds think alike across the pond. The Cooper Davis Act, STOP CSAM Act, and EARN IT Act are similar proposals in US Congress regarding restrictions on messaging and encryption.

nottheengineer ,

given that the lawmakers who enact crap like that are usually tech-illiterate, we at least have high chances of loopholes.

At this point, I instinctively disagree with anyone who tries to “protect the children” or “fight terrorism”. I tried challenging that prejudice many times, but never had any success.

Koof_on_the_Roof ,

They are led by by the “protect paedos” and “create terrorism” gang. Unfortunately most people are too dumb or disinterested to look beyond the popularist slogans.

SilentCal OP ,

For more biased (but probably agreeable to Lemmings) coverage, see the EFF’s article: eff.org/…/colorado-supreme-court-upholds-keyword-…

ripcord ,
@ripcord@kbin.social avatar

"anyone who disagrees with me is a lemming"

SilentCal OP ,

While I am, of course, the most based person in existence and all others must bask in my greatness, I was using lemming as a demonym for users of Lemmy, the fediverse platform you are using.

ripcord ,
@ripcord@kbin.social avatar

Thanks, I am dumb.

trash80 ,

They claim the search warrant, which was overly broad and without individual probable cause, did not violate Google’s millions of US users’ fourth amendment protections, because the court said the police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.

So, ignorance of the law actually is an acceptable defense?

scottywh ,

Only for cops

NeoNachtwaechter ,

because police were acting in good faith under what was known about the law at the time.

A terrible smell.

‘Good faith’ is such a weak reasoning. How can it be used for the actions of officials, and even more so when they act against constitutional rights? Shouldn’t a police know both what the law is and what they are doing? What if the police and this court are both equally clueless about the law?

CmdrShepard ,

I believe SCOTUS has ruled that police officers have no duty to actually be familiar with laws/statutes while performing their job.

NeoNachtwaechter , (edited )

Ah, OK, I see. Shoot first, ask the questions later.

(But I guess the rule of law wants to have a word with these Scotuses)

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •