Re: Are Flock cameras next? Supreme Court rules against police using sprawling cell phone location data
Schlomo Goldberg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.community,alt.privacy,sac.politics,talk.politics.guns |
|---|---|
| Organization | AmigaXess |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Scott Hoge <[email protected]> writes: > On 2026-07-07, Flocked Up <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> From there, police are able to expand the warrant and look >> deeper into specific accounts and addresses to get identity >> information. >> >> The Supreme Court is making it harder or even impossible to get >> them. The justices ruled that these warrants could constitute >> an unreasonable search and seizure, because oftentimes >> citizens' data is scooped up and investigated even if they have >> no connection to the crime. >> >> "I don't believe my cell number being found in a particular >> location is particularly troublesome to me if I haven't >> committed any crimes," McDonald said. >> >> But just because someone else committed a crime, it doesn't >> mean that there is no longer a right to privacy, Benza said. > > Enough with this "right to privacy." We seal envelopes not because the letter contains a conspiracy, but because the contents belong exclusively to the sender and the receiver. The "nothing to hide" argument is pure corporate/state propaganda. Privacy isn't about hiding a crime; it's about deciding who gets access to your life. It's a boundary of power, not a shield of guilt. https://dontgetflocked.com/