Is it morals? More likely the employees are just foreign. And let's not kid ourselves, the employees from China are sending all the good info back home to their military.
If the President of the United States can work for the benefit of a foreign government, why shouldn't a Google worker?
This case has nothing to do with "judicial review". It's very simple: if you are the government and you want information about a citizen's location over time? Get a fucking warrant.
It makes perfect sense that this would upset the Trumpists, who are comfortable with authoritarianism, and long as their big, wet baby is the authoritarian.
The dissent has some actual legal reasoning, which you might read.
He voted to allow the government to collect your location data wiithout a warrant. His reasoning is worth fuck-all. His motivations were purely political, in support of an authoritarian president.
This case is the wireless equivalent of "Can the government search your garbage [wikipedia.org] without a warrant after you've put it on the street corner for pickup?" The issue here wasn't if the government needed a warrant to track you as you're mischaracterizing it. It's if the government needed a warrant to obtain personal information you've already willingly given up to a third party.
That is remarkably stupid. Just because you share something with a third party doesn't mean you give up your rights. Yours is the authoritarian argument:
Unlike possessions inside your home or car or on your person, it is not at all obvious that these things enjoy 4th Amendment protection.
With today's Supreme Court ruling, it is most definitely obvious.
The alternative means your rights can change at any time based on the makeup and whims of the current court.
And you apparently believe your rights can change at any time based upon a vote of congress. Historically, the courts can be trusted to protect rights more often than Congress. That's why the Founding Fathers decided to have a co-equal Supreme Court.
Translation: you didn't read it and you don't care what the legal rationale is.
At the end of the day, it's just rationale. He voted to allow the government to access your location without a warrant. Full stop. Lip service is lip service.
Did you read the ruling? It's very interesting. This is from the dissent:
This is a long-standing American tradition that goes back to the Founding Fathers: Use the flowery language of Liberty, but when it comes right down to it, support Tyranny. That's what the dissenters did today.
Gorsuch didn't like that the Roberts ruling was too vague and incomplete on addressing prior fourth amendment cases.
Gorsuch voted in favor of the government's right to track your location without a warrant. You can spin that all you want, but it's in the record books now and you can't refute it.
All the talk of "rights of the individual" and "The Constitution" are lip service. If he supported liberty over tyranny, he could have voted with the liberal majority and written a concurring opinion to clarify his position.
The 5-4 opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the four most liberal justices. It is a loss for the Justice Department, which had argued that an individual has diminished privacy rights when it comes to information that has been voluntarily shared with someone else.
So, the liberals on the court voted in favor of your right to privacy and the "conservatives", including Trump's boy Gorsuch, voted that fuck your privacy rights, the police need to track you without a warrant. Also, the Trump Administration argued that your freedom isn't as important as the right of the government to track you.
Remember that the next time some Republican or Trumpist tells you that they're all about the rights of the individual and smaller government. Republicans will always be the party of authoritarianism and the elite.
I mean, there were probably wired mobile phones in the trenches during WWII, Korean war and Viet Nam war, but since the 90s at least, I think most mobile phones have been wireless.
I don't know about you but I still have to give my mobile phone a couple of good cranks before making a call. I suppose I should upgrade.
It's not so weird when you realize this case aligns those in favor of strong state rights (typically conservatives) with those in favor of strong government power (typically liberals).
If Scalia had lived, the Court probably would've ruled 5-4 the other way. Scalia favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, meaning in his opinion the clause prohibiting taxes on interstate commerce probably would've prevailed.
So you're saying that Scalia was not a big proponent of states' rights? Now I'm really confused.
The vote breakdown on this decision was really weird. Voting in favor of requiring online retailers to collect sales tax were Justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Ginsburg and Gorsuch. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined Chief Justice Roberts in the dissent.
I wonder if Trump ever foresaw his boy Gorsuch and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joining on a 5-4 decision.
Your president is insuring diversity of supply, as any good president should.
Yes, that's why Trump is announcing the Whale Oil Initiative. To insure diversity of supply. The peat fuel lobby just bought EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt a townhouse in DC, so I expect to hear about the new Peat Fuel Initiative any day now.
A. Don't enter my figgin' sovereign nation illegally.
B. Change the law.
Here's an easier way to resolve the immediate problem:
A: Don't kidnap children and then lose them in the system
B. See A. You're done.
We have children who are being taken away from their parents at the border and then sent 2000 miles away without due process and without notifying parents.
No? If you are arrested for something and cannot make bail, either because you cannot afford it, or perhaps because you are denied it because you are deemed a flight risk.
Not for misdemeanors.
Most runnings of red lights aren't misdemeanors, they are civil infractions.
Immigration violations are also civil infractions.
they're rightfully worried some nutjob is going to go off half cocked and hurt somebody.
A nutjob has already gone off half-cocked and hurt people. He's getting away with it because Republicans in Congress are either too scared or agree with his Nazi policies.
a bunch of poorly paid gov't employees who most likely took the job out of desperation
The dockets at Nuremberg were filled with "poorly paid gov't employees who most likely took the job out of desperation". I'm sorry, but "just following orders" is no excuse, and it will not save them from the hangman.
A reckoning is coming, and history will not look kindly on the guards in the "Tender Age" concentration camps on our Southern border.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you sweet summer child.
If the President of the United States can work for the benefit of a foreign government, why shouldn't a Google worker?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
Government doesn't give you any rights, you stupid sonofabitch.
No, I live in California.
This case has nothing to do with "judicial review". It's very simple: if you are the government and you want information about a citizen's location over time? Get a fucking warrant.
It makes perfect sense that this would upset the Trumpists, who are comfortable with authoritarianism, and long as their big, wet baby is the authoritarian.
He voted to allow the government to collect your location data wiithout a warrant. His reasoning is worth fuck-all. His motivations were purely political, in support of an authoritarian president.
That is remarkably stupid. Just because you share something with a third party doesn't mean you give up your rights. Yours is the authoritarian argument:
With today's Supreme Court ruling, it is most definitely obvious.
And you apparently believe your rights can change at any time based upon a vote of congress. Historically, the courts can be trusted to protect rights more often than Congress. That's why the Founding Fathers decided to have a co-equal Supreme Court.
At the end of the day, it's just rationale. He voted to allow the government to access your location without a warrant. Full stop. Lip service is lip service.
This is a long-standing American tradition that goes back to the Founding Fathers: Use the flowery language of Liberty, but when it comes right down to it, support Tyranny. That's what the dissenters did today.
Gorsuch voted in favor of the government's right to track your location without a warrant. You can spin that all you want, but it's in the record books now and you can't refute it.
All the talk of "rights of the individual" and "The Constitution" are lip service. If he supported liberty over tyranny, he could have voted with the liberal majority and written a concurring opinion to clarify his position.
Bootlickers gonna bootlick.
So, the liberals on the court voted in favor of your right to privacy and the "conservatives", including Trump's boy Gorsuch, voted that fuck your privacy rights, the police need to track you without a warrant. Also, the Trump Administration argued that your freedom isn't as important as the right of the government to track you.
Remember that the next time some Republican or Trumpist tells you that they're all about the rights of the individual and smaller government. Republicans will always be the party of authoritarianism and the elite.
I don't know about you but I still have to give my mobile phone a couple of good cranks before making a call. I suppose I should upgrade.
So you're saying that Scalia was not a big proponent of states' rights? Now I'm really confused.
Would it surprise you to learn that he frequents the Golden Cat?
The vote breakdown on this decision was really weird. Voting in favor of requiring online retailers to collect sales tax were Justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Ginsburg and Gorsuch. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined Chief Justice Roberts in the dissent.
I wonder if Trump ever foresaw his boy Gorsuch and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joining on a 5-4 decision.
Yes, that's why Trump is announcing the Whale Oil Initiative. To insure diversity of supply. The peat fuel lobby just bought EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt a townhouse in DC, so I expect to hear about the new Peat Fuel Initiative any day now.
Current images provided by the Trump administration:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and...
These are not images from the Obama administration. These are from right now.
Here's an easier way to resolve the immediate problem:
A: Don't kidnap children and then lose them in the system
B. See A. You're done.
We have children who are being taken away from their parents at the border and then sent 2000 miles away without due process and without notifying parents.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new...
This is some Nazi shit right here, and you can argue all day long about sovereignty, but Nazi Germany was also a sovereign country. So fuck you.
You silly sonofabitch. These images were provided by the Trump administration. These are current, and they're not staged, you fucking knob.
https://www.thecut.com/2018/06...
The kind we should have had after the first Civil War, if we'd only let General Sherman do what needed to be done.
The fact that the traitors received a general pardon was a travesty. Sherman was right.
Not for misdemeanors.
Immigration violations are also civil infractions.
Nobody in the US loses their kids over a misdemeanor. If you run a red light, you don't have your kids put in a "Tender Age" prison.
A nutjob has already gone off half-cocked and hurt people. He's getting away with it because Republicans in Congress are either too scared or agree with his Nazi policies.
The dockets at Nuremberg were filled with "poorly paid gov't employees who most likely took the job out of desperation". I'm sorry, but "just following orders" is no excuse, and it will not save them from the hangman.
A reckoning is coming, and history will not look kindly on the guards in the "Tender Age" concentration camps on our Southern border.
You're going to be disappointed when Alexa sends a 13 year-old jockey to your room. Or maybe not.