So you're the bastard that makes wiring harnesses? *sighs* I do not work on my vehicles any more. I can do the work and I love automobiles in an unhealthy way (no, not like that) but I am so tired of splitting knuckles open and getting grease on my hand and stays embedded for a half dozen showers afterwards. Anyhow, wiring harness on an old Volvo 245 that I ended up sending out for a factory restoration... 3 days... THREE DAYS! I do not know if I should blame the harness manufacturers (I had to replace several connectors that were wrong and two that mysteriously broke even though I bought the OEM spec and one that had was improperly connected and had no current at all) or if I should blame the bastards that designed it in the first place. Stick 3" worth of wiring in a 1" hole they said. You'll be fine they said. 8 hours they said... Screw them and the donkey they rode in on.
A better comparison would be that the car company puts a little green button on the outside of the door of your car which triggers the breaks to lock in the car and not asking if this green button might not be a smart or safe thing to have on the outside of the car.
You may be in for a shock if you ever get to start an HMMWV or any number of military vehicles. The HMMWV you just turn the switch, wait for the light to go out, and turn it the rest of the way. There is no "park" either. Many of them are just push button starts.
Not that I do not realize what you are saying and the switch is not outside or anything. 1 is for when you have one person in the Humvee, 2 is for when you have two people in the Humvee, D is for daytime driving, N is for night, and R is for when you want to go Right Straight Through... *nods*
Do you mean the Cizeta? Other than the dorky headlights, if I recall correctly, they were nifty looking and priced remarkably well for the time. I'd own one if I could do anything other than put it on a trailer and drag it around behind me.
There might be some complications with that. The auto service center may need to be an OEM service center and they can not legally prohibit (or void warranties) one from using a non-OEM service center. In this case the OEMs would likely make things that can write updates be either rented or purchased at a very high cost. Then you have the issue of the guy who owns a garage thinking it would be wise to connect his system to an update server (gotta update the machine that does the updating) and then leaking out the certificate and any other proprietary information. So, yeah, it is going to need some work.
I use a GreaseMonkey (technically Tampermonkey) script that adds icons and links to various torrent sites at the top of IMDB's movie pages. I am definitely infringing. If they take it down I will just modify it to work at a different site or, you know, just go to Google or use the right-click > search function and search the torrent sites directly.
Nah, they grab a copy now. When they get a new system they install 7 and then use the upgrade path to 10. It should work like a champ. There is some chance they will need to call to activate 7 but that is an automated process and takes two minutes.
Look into LinuxMint - Cinnamon. Mint has a Mate version as well. Cinnamon pretty much eliminated any hang-ups like the one seen when opening the start menu. It is actually well done and makes a great userland environment.
My understanding is that some of the beta builds had an 'Uninstall Windows 10' if you used the upgrade path. Having read your other post(s) it is not worth it for you to risk it - even if it has a high probability of success. The risks simply outweigh the benefits and the interruption of your work-flow will only hinder you. If you insist on doing so then simply make a bare-metal restore image of your current configuration and do the upgrade. If this fails you simply write back the original data and go about your day. Restoration in that manner is complete, quick, and effective. I prefer Acronis TrueImage. There are a variety of other solutions available.
I am afraid I can not help you with the specifics. I went a bit crazy and now have nothing but various flavors of Linux and BSD scattered across my house on desktops and laptops. I stopped my insanity with just one last box to go. It is actually running Vista - a pretty decent OS when you get it updated. I do not plan on going to Windows 10 though I will probably keep it in a VM and keep my MSDN subscription.
Your use-case is such that you probably should not upgrade. You may want to grab your free copy, however. You can burn that to disk in.iso format and save it for later. If you build your own PC next time you can use that as your OS. Win7 will not have a long life like XP probably. You are safe for now and can look up the EOL for 7 at Microsoft's site if you want.
Again, do not upgrade. It is not something someone in your position should do unless they must. If you want to play with 10 then a VM (there are a few solutions, I pay for VMware Workstation) is the way to go. Your PC can easily handle running a separate OS at the same time. Just do not have a bunch of apps open in the host OS and the guest OS will be quite pleased.
Much thanks. That is, for the most part, how I understood it would likely be. I appreciate your time. Thank you for putting it into words that even I can understand. It is neat taking a look into other areas of expertise.
Do you mean 'self-righteous' perhaps? No spaces are needed around the hyphen. The spaces actually make it nonstandard if not entirely incorrect. Spaces around a hyphen imply a new/secondary concept. A hyphen, without spaces, joins the two words to make an implied (or defined) single meaning. In this case, self-righteous is actually a defined word - I am pretty sure.
Note: I am not, nor will I ever be, a grammar expert (Grammarian maybe?) so feel free to tell me where I am mistaken.
I have never seen that problem or, at least, never attributed that problem to interference in transit or by the client. I had, wrongly, assumed you had meant human interference such as a MITM altering data to insert content for the purposes of evil. I have not seen that either.
I have mailed and received mail with source in it. It was usually an attachment however or a snippet. I also do not allow my email application to insert line breaks or to use line breaks - break the text where it was either sent or where the edge of my browser/reader is.
Nor do I get any languages other than the occasional Spanish. We did some work overseas but all email communication was in English. Anything else was translated in person or over a conference call.
One of the benefits was probably that we dealt with mostly government and large businesses. They tend to stick to known formats for interoperability purposes and seldom send 'formatted' text emails. They usually just send plain text with no markup or, if needed, they will send a message and have an attachment that is HTML or the likes. This may have changed but such was the case.
Another saving grace was that we usually stressed the importance of not including information, where applicable, inside the body of the text. Attachments seem to not have nearly as much trouble from what you are describing. An email saying what something is, why it is important, and how it should be used is great. Attach a second bit of information if needed. A lot of email attachments were raw data and really were not conducive to being included in an email body to begin with. A.csv with traffic stats really does not work well as an email itself but as an attachment it works great.
I guess the different use cases, though still similar functionality, resulted in different experiences. This is hardly surprising given the number of bugs that are found by the outlier cases while the program works just fine for the majority. It seems only likely.
Anyhow, thanks for describing it. I was awfully confused. I was having a hell of a time picturing someone manually inserting malicious headers into emails via MITM attacks or someone coding something targeting just this purpose. It seems plausible but rather unlikely to be frequent enough to matter though I do recall hearing of an email provider who did insert ads into message bodies themselves. I had wondered if that was the subject as well.
It would appear that there is an "I am not smart enough to understand my rights and obligations and think the constitution means something other than what it means -1 mod." I did not know that was an option. It is statistically certain that stupid people will get mod points.
You understand it correctly, Now tell me how this is different than any other case and why you have a problem with it... Note that judges must follow the constitution when handing out warrants. Note that warrants have not, nor have they ever been, something that you argue against. That is the judges job. The state petitions the court for a warrant and the judge decides if their request meets the burdens set out in the constitution and then issues or refuses a warrant. You, a third party, or anyone in the country is subject to this process when required. Warrants are not argued... Stop assuming the shit you see on Law and Order is factual. Evidence collected from warrants is subject to being argued. Subpoenas can be argued against. This is not new. This is not some new encroachment on your rights. This has been this way since time immemorial. If, for some reason, you wish to change the 4th Amendment (which is being followed here - in spirit and in letter) then you will need some compelling reason to do so.
It could be said that a business is an entity only by grace of the law, it is the law that allows the business to exist. Without such they are just people. As such they are subjected to the burden of having to fulfill certain legal obligations. One of those obligations is accepting that they are subjected to warrants just like any other third party. If a judge decides to grant a warrant subjecting you, personally, and the basis is concerning my criminal acts then you have no say, have never had a say, and are obligated to do so as a part of your social contract and they will happily enforce the warrant with force. Warrants are not argued. They are enforced. Evidence collected during warrant executions is argued. This is not going to change and these laws are in place for a reason.
I think a lot of the confusion is that people are conflating the terms subpoena and warrant. As you seem to know, they are not even remotely the same. One does not, for instance, fight a warrant. A valid warrant is a valid warrant and comes with a threat of immediate force as warrants are often served by firearm wielding police officers. You can argue a subpoena before the fact. Warrants do not, as you know, get argued after the fact if and when the material collected is submitted as evidence in court.
I figure the additional clarification may help. Probably not but it might...
What is scary is you argue the results and effect while, at the same time, you argue the validity of the process. That makes you a hypo.... Wait, no, that makes you a reasonable and educated person who is not an ignorant zealot. I am pretty sure that means you do not belong here. What is really scary is that people think that this needs to change, the process, when they have yet failed to realize the implications and offer no better solutions. I think this is because they simply do not know what a warrant is, how it is different than a subpoena, and what the goal of a warrant actually is. They do not seem to realize the burden of evidence or even seem to realize that a warrant is not always even a requirement if probable cause conditions are met.
For those in the peanut gallery, it is *similar* to this:
If I am running from the police and they see me run into msobkow's house they are not going to ask msobkow's permission to come in and retrieve me. If msobkow tries to tell them that they need a warrant to come in then they are going to laugh and arrest them for obstruction of justice. If they did not see me but have reasonable suspicion then msobkow can make them get a warrant. Once they have that warrant (which is up to the judge and has not one bit to do with msobkow's views on the matter) they are going to enter msobkow's residence to search for and arrest me. After the fact we can argue about the legality and the evidence is subject to that. After the fact they may subpoena msobkow's information to see if they and I had a prior relationship if such is actually applicable to the case. That, the subpoena, can be argued before it is executed.
"I'd like to get some sleep before I travel, but if you've got a warrant I guess you're gonna come in."
Basically, if the cop is asking they need a warrant. If they do not need a warrant they are not going to be nice enough to ask. We get to argue our rights after the fact, not before.
It used to be that the Constitution was interpreted as a list of what the government could do:
"The 4th Amendment does not give us the ability to do that..."
Then the interpretation became things the government could not do:
"The 4th Amendment does not expressly prohibit us from doing that..."
And that is where the difference lies. That is what is wrong, or one of the things wrong, and that attitude is what needs to change. It could also be argued that the entire interpretation has changed yet again -- the Constitution is not important.
"The 4th Amendment does not apply because we can always claim emergency powers or act in secret..."
This is not a good thing. It is just an observation.
You do not really challenge a warrant. You challenge the validity of the evidence collected through an effected warrant. In other words, a warrant happens without any argument - unlike what you see on Law and Order. The issued warrant is then served and the search is conducted. The material is collected. Later that material is, potentially, submitted as evidence. This is often done at an evidentiary hearing where it is out of site and out of mind for jury members. This is where it the validity of the warrant is argued though sometimes it is argued in open court and not at an evidentiary hearing. It is during those considerations that the legality of the search is considered and judged. Any material recovered from an unlawful search/seizure is not supposed to be submitted as evidence for judgment/consideration. The submission of evidence is where the legality of recovered material is judged - not at the warrant stage. If investigations/proceedings are ongoing and a more material is being sought then that subpoena (not a warrant) is argued by the defense.
Hmm... I think I covered everything. One of the universities that I attended, I was a GI Bill student and did various campus jobs for extra money, occasionally paid students to fill roles in their law college. They had a whole mock courtroom set up, complete with spectators, Sometimes even the general public would fill roles on a volunteer basis. Anyhow, this mock setup was really well done and very complete. It was used to educate the future lawyers. It was one of my favorite jobs and paid fairly well considering. The drama students also made use of it. Anyhow, that was actually a fairly good source of information. I may have a detail or two wrong above but I can not see anything wrong with what I wrote. I think I covered enough of the details (one can be very specific and type for hours on the subject) and that may help you to see where things are different than what you expect.
I returned to the top to type this. This is a small novella and you have been warned. I figured I would add this to the beginning instead of at the end.
TL;DR - If it is too long for you to read then your opinion is not valid. Some things are more complicated than that which can fit on a bumper sticker. Failure to comprehend or unwillingness to do so is a direct cause of the failings we have in the system. Life and rights are more complicated than a blurb from a politician or pundit.
-----------
Evidence collected from lawful (or unlawful) warrants is challenged after the warrant's service and the collection of said evidence. The real system does not work anything like what you see on Law and Order or CSI. You are not going to find a defense attorney in the judge's chambers arguing about the issuing of a warrant until long after the warrant has been issued and executed. Then, when that does happen, they argue the validity of the warrant, the phrasing, the date, the specific area for specific material, and other things.
It is your part of the social contract to understand the law at the layman's level. You are obligated to observe the courts and to petition the court (and/or make use of the press) when you see inappropriate behavior. That is your end of the bargain - if you want rights and an effective judicial system then you, personally, are obligated to ensure it is so. Courts are generally open to the public. Go observe the courts, learn the procedures and the laws (law library access is free and a protected right), and then act accordingly based on your observations.
Your failure to uphold your end of the social contract is the cause of the illegal actions being taken by the courts and by their enforcement arms. You, as an interested third party or 'friend to the court,' can petition the judge and are obligated to do so in the case of wrong-doing. There is a district court in every single county in the entire country. Public access is free and mandatory. Oft used excuses to disallow public access are space considerations, you can demand they pipe the procedures out over CCTV or even that they continue the matter until _reasonable_ space has been provided for public observation. The judge is the ultimate decider of such matters and some cases are not public (such as juvenile matters) and portions of hearings may be closed to the public.
One of the more important things to learn is the difference between a civil and criminal trial as well as where the burden of proof comes from. Evidence is not, for example, proof but goes to prove (or disprove) the alleged charges. Criminal matters must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt - not beyond all doubt but beyond what a reasonable person would believe. Civil matters require the preponderance of evidence which means the State's obligation of burden of proof are such that they need only prove that the defendant is more likely to have committed the offense than to have not committed the offense. Legal council is just that. You can represent yourself while still retaining the services of a lawyer. Council advises you and you can authorize them to speak on your behalf (to represent you) if you wish but you needn't do so. I, for example, politely ask the judge to direct any and all questions to me and not to my councilor. I represent myself in most matters though I retain a professional for reasons of advice, paperwork, and due to their familiarity with the procedures.
Anyhow, the obligation rests with you. You must, personally, get off your ass and observe the courts. Yes, this maybe means taking one of your vacation days to do so. This responsibility lies with you, and everyone else, and the failings of the court can be traced to the apathy of the governed. The most approachable representation you have is at the level of the press but this is owned and serviced by the citizenry. The most accessible direct branch of the government, for personal involvement, is at the judicial level and it is your job to be involved. You are the checks
Slashdot Mirror
So you're the bastard that makes wiring harnesses? *sighs* I do not work on my vehicles any more. I can do the work and I love automobiles in an unhealthy way (no, not like that) but I am so tired of splitting knuckles open and getting grease on my hand and stays embedded for a half dozen showers afterwards. Anyhow, wiring harness on an old Volvo 245 that I ended up sending out for a factory restoration... 3 days... THREE DAYS! I do not know if I should blame the harness manufacturers (I had to replace several connectors that were wrong and two that mysteriously broke even though I bought the OEM spec and one that had was improperly connected and had no current at all) or if I should blame the bastards that designed it in the first place. Stick 3" worth of wiring in a 1" hole they said. You'll be fine they said. 8 hours they said... Screw them and the donkey they rode in on.
A better comparison would be that the car company puts a little green button on the outside of the door of your car which triggers the breaks to lock in the car and not asking if this green button might not be a smart or safe thing to have on the outside of the car.
You may be in for a shock if you ever get to start an HMMWV or any number of military vehicles. The HMMWV you just turn the switch, wait for the light to go out, and turn it the rest of the way. There is no "park" either. Many of them are just push button starts.
Not that I do not realize what you are saying and the switch is not outside or anything. 1 is for when you have one person in the Humvee, 2 is for when you have two people in the Humvee, D is for daytime driving, N is for night, and R is for when you want to go Right Straight Through... *nods*
Do you mean the Cizeta? Other than the dorky headlights, if I recall correctly, they were nifty looking and priced remarkably well for the time. I'd own one if I could do anything other than put it on a trailer and drag it around behind me.
There might be some complications with that. The auto service center may need to be an OEM service center and they can not legally prohibit (or void warranties) one from using a non-OEM service center. In this case the OEMs would likely make things that can write updates be either rented or purchased at a very high cost. Then you have the issue of the guy who owns a garage thinking it would be wise to connect his system to an update server (gotta update the machine that does the updating) and then leaking out the certificate and any other proprietary information. So, yeah, it is going to need some work.
I use a GreaseMonkey (technically Tampermonkey) script that adds icons and links to various torrent sites at the top of IMDB's movie pages. I am definitely infringing. If they take it down I will just modify it to work at a different site or, you know, just go to Google or use the right-click > search function and search the torrent sites directly.
I don't want to say that it is the NSA but, yeah, it is the NSA. Hmm... I wonder if you can use the FOIA to do a bare-metal restoration?
I would like to introduce you to my friend, the bell curve...
Nah, they grab a copy now. When they get a new system they install 7 and then use the upgrade path to 10. It should work like a champ. There is some chance they will need to call to activate 7 but that is an automated process and takes two minutes.
That was beautiful. Saved for future reference.
Look into LinuxMint - Cinnamon. Mint has a Mate version as well. Cinnamon pretty much eliminated any hang-ups like the one seen when opening the start menu. It is actually well done and makes a great userland environment.
My understanding is that some of the beta builds had an 'Uninstall Windows 10' if you used the upgrade path. Having read your other post(s) it is not worth it for you to risk it - even if it has a high probability of success. The risks simply outweigh the benefits and the interruption of your work-flow will only hinder you. If you insist on doing so then simply make a bare-metal restore image of your current configuration and do the upgrade. If this fails you simply write back the original data and go about your day. Restoration in that manner is complete, quick, and effective. I prefer Acronis TrueImage. There are a variety of other solutions available.
I am afraid I can not help you with the specifics. I went a bit crazy and now have nothing but various flavors of Linux and BSD scattered across my house on desktops and laptops. I stopped my insanity with just one last box to go. It is actually running Vista - a pretty decent OS when you get it updated. I do not plan on going to Windows 10 though I will probably keep it in a VM and keep my MSDN subscription.
Your use-case is such that you probably should not upgrade. You may want to grab your free copy, however. You can burn that to disk in .iso format and save it for later. If you build your own PC next time you can use that as your OS. Win7 will not have a long life like XP probably. You are safe for now and can look up the EOL for 7 at Microsoft's site if you want.
Again, do not upgrade. It is not something someone in your position should do unless they must. If you want to play with 10 then a VM (there are a few solutions, I pay for VMware Workstation) is the way to go. Your PC can easily handle running a separate OS at the same time. Just do not have a bunch of apps open in the host OS and the guest OS will be quite pleased.
It would be mandatory that it be removed entirely from OS releases in Europe.
Much thanks. That is, for the most part, how I understood it would likely be. I appreciate your time. Thank you for putting it into words that even I can understand. It is neat taking a look into other areas of expertise.
Do you mean 'self-righteous' perhaps? No spaces are needed around the hyphen. The spaces actually make it nonstandard if not entirely incorrect. Spaces around a hyphen imply a new/secondary concept. A hyphen, without spaces, joins the two words to make an implied (or defined) single meaning. In this case, self-righteous is actually a defined word - I am pretty sure.
Note: I am not, nor will I ever be, a grammar expert (Grammarian maybe?) so feel free to tell me where I am mistaken.
I have never seen that problem or, at least, never attributed that problem to interference in transit or by the client. I had, wrongly, assumed you had meant human interference such as a MITM altering data to insert content for the purposes of evil. I have not seen that either.
I have mailed and received mail with source in it. It was usually an attachment however or a snippet. I also do not allow my email application to insert line breaks or to use line breaks - break the text where it was either sent or where the edge of my browser/reader is.
Nor do I get any languages other than the occasional Spanish. We did some work overseas but all email communication was in English. Anything else was translated in person or over a conference call.
One of the benefits was probably that we dealt with mostly government and large businesses. They tend to stick to known formats for interoperability purposes and seldom send 'formatted' text emails. They usually just send plain text with no markup or, if needed, they will send a message and have an attachment that is HTML or the likes. This may have changed but such was the case.
Another saving grace was that we usually stressed the importance of not including information, where applicable, inside the body of the text. Attachments seem to not have nearly as much trouble from what you are describing. An email saying what something is, why it is important, and how it should be used is great. Attach a second bit of information if needed. A lot of email attachments were raw data and really were not conducive to being included in an email body to begin with. A .csv with traffic stats really does not work well as an email itself but as an attachment it works great.
I guess the different use cases, though still similar functionality, resulted in different experiences. This is hardly surprising given the number of bugs that are found by the outlier cases while the program works just fine for the majority. It seems only likely.
Anyhow, thanks for describing it. I was awfully confused. I was having a hell of a time picturing someone manually inserting malicious headers into emails via MITM attacks or someone coding something targeting just this purpose. It seems plausible but rather unlikely to be frequent enough to matter though I do recall hearing of an email provider who did insert ads into message bodies themselves. I had wondered if that was the subject as well.
It would appear that there is an "I am not smart enough to understand my rights and obligations and think the constitution means something other than what it means -1 mod." I did not know that was an option. It is statistically certain that stupid people will get mod points.
You understand it correctly, Now tell me how this is different than any other case and why you have a problem with it... Note that judges must follow the constitution when handing out warrants. Note that warrants have not, nor have they ever been, something that you argue against. That is the judges job. The state petitions the court for a warrant and the judge decides if their request meets the burdens set out in the constitution and then issues or refuses a warrant. You, a third party, or anyone in the country is subject to this process when required. Warrants are not argued... Stop assuming the shit you see on Law and Order is factual. Evidence collected from warrants is subject to being argued. Subpoenas can be argued against. This is not new. This is not some new encroachment on your rights. This has been this way since time immemorial. If, for some reason, you wish to change the 4th Amendment (which is being followed here - in spirit and in letter) then you will need some compelling reason to do so.
It could be said that a business is an entity only by grace of the law, it is the law that allows the business to exist. Without such they are just people. As such they are subjected to the burden of having to fulfill certain legal obligations. One of those obligations is accepting that they are subjected to warrants just like any other third party. If a judge decides to grant a warrant subjecting you, personally, and the basis is concerning my criminal acts then you have no say, have never had a say, and are obligated to do so as a part of your social contract and they will happily enforce the warrant with force. Warrants are not argued. They are enforced. Evidence collected during warrant executions is argued. This is not going to change and these laws are in place for a reason.
I think a lot of the confusion is that people are conflating the terms subpoena and warrant. As you seem to know, they are not even remotely the same. One does not, for instance, fight a warrant. A valid warrant is a valid warrant and comes with a threat of immediate force as warrants are often served by firearm wielding police officers. You can argue a subpoena before the fact. Warrants do not, as you know, get argued after the fact if and when the material collected is submitted as evidence in court.
I figure the additional clarification may help. Probably not but it might...
What is scary is you argue the results and effect while, at the same time, you argue the validity of the process. That makes you a hypo.... Wait, no, that makes you a reasonable and educated person who is not an ignorant zealot. I am pretty sure that means you do not belong here. What is really scary is that people think that this needs to change, the process, when they have yet failed to realize the implications and offer no better solutions. I think this is because they simply do not know what a warrant is, how it is different than a subpoena, and what the goal of a warrant actually is. They do not seem to realize the burden of evidence or even seem to realize that a warrant is not always even a requirement if probable cause conditions are met.
For those in the peanut gallery, it is *similar* to this:
If I am running from the police and they see me run into msobkow's house they are not going to ask msobkow's permission to come in and retrieve me. If msobkow tries to tell them that they need a warrant to come in then they are going to laugh and arrest them for obstruction of justice. If they did not see me but have reasonable suspicion then msobkow can make them get a warrant. Once they have that warrant (which is up to the judge and has not one bit to do with msobkow's views on the matter) they are going to enter msobkow's residence to search for and arrest me. After the fact we can argue about the legality and the evidence is subject to that. After the fact they may subpoena msobkow's information to see if they and I had a prior relationship if such is actually applicable to the case. That, the subpoena, can be argued before it is executed.
"I'd like to get some sleep before I travel, but if you've got a warrant I guess you're gonna come in."
Basically, if the cop is asking they need a warrant. If they do not need a warrant they are not going to be nice enough to ask. We get to argue our rights after the fact, not before.
You know that the Olmstead ruling was overturned, right?
It used to be that the Constitution was interpreted as a list of what the government could do:
"The 4th Amendment does not give us the ability to do that..."
Then the interpretation became things the government could not do:
"The 4th Amendment does not expressly prohibit us from doing that..."
And that is where the difference lies. That is what is wrong, or one of the things wrong, and that attitude is what needs to change. It could also be argued that the entire interpretation has changed yet again -- the Constitution is not important.
"The 4th Amendment does not apply because we can always claim emergency powers or act in secret..."
This is not a good thing. It is just an observation.
You do not really challenge a warrant. You challenge the validity of the evidence collected through an effected warrant. In other words, a warrant happens without any argument - unlike what you see on Law and Order. The issued warrant is then served and the search is conducted. The material is collected. Later that material is, potentially, submitted as evidence. This is often done at an evidentiary hearing where it is out of site and out of mind for jury members. This is where it the validity of the warrant is argued though sometimes it is argued in open court and not at an evidentiary hearing. It is during those considerations that the legality of the search is considered and judged. Any material recovered from an unlawful search/seizure is not supposed to be submitted as evidence for judgment/consideration. The submission of evidence is where the legality of recovered material is judged - not at the warrant stage. If investigations/proceedings are ongoing and a more material is being sought then that subpoena (not a warrant) is argued by the defense.
Hmm... I think I covered everything. One of the universities that I attended, I was a GI Bill student and did various campus jobs for extra money, occasionally paid students to fill roles in their law college. They had a whole mock courtroom set up, complete with spectators, Sometimes even the general public would fill roles on a volunteer basis. Anyhow, this mock setup was really well done and very complete. It was used to educate the future lawyers. It was one of my favorite jobs and paid fairly well considering. The drama students also made use of it. Anyhow, that was actually a fairly good source of information. I may have a detail or two wrong above but I can not see anything wrong with what I wrote. I think I covered enough of the details (one can be very specific and type for hours on the subject) and that may help you to see where things are different than what you expect.
I returned to the top to type this. This is a small novella and you have been warned. I figured I would add this to the beginning instead of at the end.
TL;DR - If it is too long for you to read then your opinion is not valid. Some things are more complicated than that which can fit on a bumper sticker. Failure to comprehend or unwillingness to do so is a direct cause of the failings we have in the system. Life and rights are more complicated than a blurb from a politician or pundit.
-----------
Evidence collected from lawful (or unlawful) warrants is challenged after the warrant's service and the collection of said evidence. The real system does not work anything like what you see on Law and Order or CSI. You are not going to find a defense attorney in the judge's chambers arguing about the issuing of a warrant until long after the warrant has been issued and executed. Then, when that does happen, they argue the validity of the warrant, the phrasing, the date, the specific area for specific material, and other things.
It is your part of the social contract to understand the law at the layman's level. You are obligated to observe the courts and to petition the court (and/or make use of the press) when you see inappropriate behavior. That is your end of the bargain - if you want rights and an effective judicial system then you, personally, are obligated to ensure it is so. Courts are generally open to the public. Go observe the courts, learn the procedures and the laws (law library access is free and a protected right), and then act accordingly based on your observations.
Your failure to uphold your end of the social contract is the cause of the illegal actions being taken by the courts and by their enforcement arms. You, as an interested third party or 'friend to the court,' can petition the judge and are obligated to do so in the case of wrong-doing. There is a district court in every single county in the entire country. Public access is free and mandatory. Oft used excuses to disallow public access are space considerations, you can demand they pipe the procedures out over CCTV or even that they continue the matter until _reasonable_ space has been provided for public observation. The judge is the ultimate decider of such matters and some cases are not public (such as juvenile matters) and portions of hearings may be closed to the public.
One of the more important things to learn is the difference between a civil and criminal trial as well as where the burden of proof comes from. Evidence is not, for example, proof but goes to prove (or disprove) the alleged charges. Criminal matters must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt - not beyond all doubt but beyond what a reasonable person would believe. Civil matters require the preponderance of evidence which means the State's obligation of burden of proof are such that they need only prove that the defendant is more likely to have committed the offense than to have not committed the offense. Legal council is just that. You can represent yourself while still retaining the services of a lawyer. Council advises you and you can authorize them to speak on your behalf (to represent you) if you wish but you needn't do so. I, for example, politely ask the judge to direct any and all questions to me and not to my councilor. I represent myself in most matters though I retain a professional for reasons of advice, paperwork, and due to their familiarity with the procedures.
Anyhow, the obligation rests with you. You must, personally, get off your ass and observe the courts. Yes, this maybe means taking one of your vacation days to do so. This responsibility lies with you, and everyone else, and the failings of the court can be traced to the apathy of the governed. The most approachable representation you have is at the level of the press but this is owned and serviced by the citizenry. The most accessible direct branch of the government, for personal involvement, is at the judicial level and it is your job to be involved. You are the checks
The people are waiting for you to go first.