Posted on 06/25/2016 9:30:05 AM PDT by Swordmaker
Correction, that should be 1791.
If the FBI would codify warrantless searches only in the case of suspected child molesters, Jihadists, etc. I wouldn’t have an issue with that.
The Law Enforcement agencies in this country have many times used employees who posed as children in so-called sting operations to catch demented perverts.
Entrapment? Not in cases such as these, I don’t have a problem with that either.
But the door has been opened to MORE government overreach!
When you get down to it, across the board, your personal information on the internet is ALREADY collected and sold to the information marketplace. Anyone who thinks there is ANYTHING private about the internet, forget about it. Your computer content, your traffic, is hacked by the internet service provider and SOLD. It is a huge market and this was the big reason behind Windows 10 being a platform for taking your information — there is HUGE money to be made by selling it. Add to this, your cell phone, traffic, location information — everything you buy in a grocery store or any store if you give them a “membership” number — your credit card transactions -— I could keep going.
*** NOTHING IS PRIVATE *** and it is all public.
I knew we were in trouble when Obama’s agency began being able to turn off our TVs and radios. I bought a fancy battery radio that picks up short wave. Should TVs and radios be shut off, they can't shut down messages sent by short wave. I checked that out before I bought that radio.
They are in it for the money. The government is trying to figure out how to get to the private wealth. Now they can. What is to stop them from stealing a person’s identity and clean out their finances and claim it was some other evildoer?
They may not need a warrant but they’ll have to have a PayPal account.
“The rise of computer hacking via the internet has changed the public’s reasonable expectations of privacy...”
That judge should be impeached and removed from the bench.
1. A judge rules on the law, not on the public’s expectation. That is squarely in the domain of the legislature, not the courts.
2. Does this judge not even understand that hacking is ILLEGAL? And this illegal activity violates several of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights? So, since hackers are routinely violating the rights of individuals, as a matter of law and precedent, we will extend that right of violation to the State?
The reasoning of this judge is insane.
Not if I turn it off.
Funny...a dusty old axiom comes to mind...something about those who would sacrifice essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety...
Really? Free BSD with no GUI and no listeners running? When I’m using an ID that is in its own group, with no privileges, to browse the internet?
I don’t think so.
They already “can” do that and surely do. They are merely constrained from using the evidence obtained directly to charge or convict someone of something. The feds and others can also place child porn on your computer to be discovered if they wan to take you down for which you have no defense- you had child porn on your computer. I suspect this tactic is already employed, how extensively I cannot guess but I am not believing that all the good citizen types who have been arrested for that very reason were vicarious paedophiles. It seems that if someone has become inconvenient and perhaps building a case against him is a hassle they just find child porn on his box.
In the past two weeks, I have gotten up in the morning to find that my computer was turned on, and the internet connection was set on “Guest”.
Don’t be surprised if you are now on the no-fly list. (Only 1/2 kidding)
Well then they should be able to read this even though it is encrypted:
G&% Y) FUC& &%KJ(*$SED!SS!
By this line of thinking, if I live in a high crime neighborhood, the police can kick my door in any time they want to.
Fag
You have to be targeted in order to get hacked Kama much the same way that a burglar might case your property and break in.
That should be illegal but, this ruling makes clear jungle law now applies
"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry." -- Thomas Jefferson
Except if your a mooslim,then Odungo makes sure any and all info obtained is erased
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.