A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
The Supreme Court [today] said the government generally needs a warrant if it wants to track an individual's location through cell phone records over an extended period of time.More later, of course, as this just broke.
The ruling is a major victory for advocates of increased privacy rights who argued more protections were needed when it comes to the government obtaining information from a third party such as a cell phone company.
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
I am disappointed in the vote breakdown, but cheered by the end result.
ReplyDeleteIDK, Kennedy’s dissent seems like a pretty good point, in some parts, even if somewhat unpalteable. Alito and Thomas are as off the rails as always, but Gorsuch’s dissent suggests he is a sixth vote in the future to reshape this debate on similar records and data. I find SCOTUSBLOG as an invaluable reference to understand the esoteric nuances often on exhibit in Supreme Court rulings. The narrowness of the ruling suggests considerable unpheval in he near future on Fourth Amendment rights, as more and more related questions trick through the courts.
ReplyDelete