JoShmoe@lemmy.zip
on 09 Dec 2023 08:26
nextcollapse
Classic my dog ate my homework excuse.
SevFTW@feddit.de
on 09 Dec 2023 09:52
nextcollapse
An armed dog ate my home work
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
on 09 Dec 2023 13:28
collapse
An armed home ate my dog work.
mangaskahn@lemmy.world
on 09 Dec 2023 17:58
collapse
Armed work ate my home dog.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
on 09 Dec 2023 18:01
collapse
Oh no! Not the HOME dog!
shakes fist at work
chitak166@lemmy.world
on 09 Dec 2023 12:56
collapse
Really made me want a classic beef hot dog.
insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world
on 09 Dec 2023 11:33
nextcollapse
How are they saying “potentially” endangered someone’s life? This is an “absolutely definitely” endangered her life story.
trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com
on 09 Dec 2023 11:36
nextcollapse
Because they got paid to say ‘potentially’ in order to downplay the seriousness of verizons ineptitude.
These news organizations do not report on the news to inform people anymore they alter the presentations of their investigations in order to appease their various shareholders, and wouldn’t you know it, their largest shareholders are corporations or affiliated persons.
Just like every other news organization that gets large enough now days.
jasory@programming.dev
on 09 Dec 2023 13:16
collapse
No, because unlike you media companies are liable to be sued for false statements.
If corporations really are in control of media companies, then a competitor of Verizon could easily pressure/bribe them to exaggerate or falsify the accusation.
fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
on 09 Dec 2023 13:20
collapse
May = just outside her home being arrested with a knife ->
When authorities later searched the Jeep Glauner had driven, they found methamphetamine and two bundles of rope.
This article is crazy if you read it. If the quality of his requests felt real, especially from a non government email address, these things must cone in shitty all the time.
ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
on 09 Dec 2023 15:17
collapse
This is the question the entire article avoids.
The article is written as if to try and get you to avoid asking it too.
“Why was no warrant required for the data?”
“Why are police allowed to just ask for your personal info without a warrant”
What’s the point of warrants if they’re no longer needed?
Like, warrants are supposed to be a crucial check on police powers, and here we are rendering them pointless.
I weep for the future.
AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 09 Dec 2023 18:09
nextcollapse
What’s the point of warrants if they’re boo longer needed?
If you give the police permission to conduct a search, they do not need a warrant.
ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
on 09 Dec 2023 18:12
collapse
But she didn’t give permission.
Why does Verizon have the authority to give it for her?
That set it up so that the material handed over was in Verizon’s possession (business records) and Verizon gave permission. The law is written so that they need a warrant for an actual wiretap (call contents) but not the metadata. Of course metadata is all you need to stalk the person, so that should need a warrant too.
It’s fairly easy to avoid giving your cellular carrier your address (get the bills sent to a PO box} or even your name (buy a prepaid phone with cash). But it’s harder to keep your call records or geolocation info away from them. :(
ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
on 09 Dec 2023 23:26
collapse
It was my understanding that warrants were needed to force the acquisition of information, regardless of the type of information. Even call contents are allowed to be freely given to the police as long as you have legitimate access to it.
So Verizon has the ability to say “no” to the metadata too.
They just choose not to.
They choose to sell it rather than force the police to get a warrant. Perhaps they give it for free, I don’t know, but either way, they’re not forced to without a warrant.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 10 Dec 2023 01:40
collapse
Because the telecommunications companies are eager to cooperate with the police. Since third-party doctrine applies, the privacy of the company, not the client, is considered, so Verizon happily consents to all police searches of phone records.
This has been discussed all the way up with SCOTUS (dominated by the Federalist Society at the time) so its legal.
ArbiterXero@lemmy.world
on 10 Dec 2023 01:54
collapse
Oh I’m not saying it’s illegal, just that it should be.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 10 Dec 2023 09:16
collapse
On that we have no disagreement.
chitak166@lemmy.world
on 09 Dec 2023 12:55
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
Classic my dog ate my homework excuse.
An armed dog ate my home work
An armed home ate my dog work.
Armed work ate my home dog.
Oh no! Not the HOME dog!
shakes fist at work
Really made me want a classic beef hot dog.
How are they saying “potentially” endangered someone’s life? This is an “absolutely definitely” endangered her life story.
Because they got paid to say ‘potentially’ in order to downplay the seriousness of verizons ineptitude. These news organizations do not report on the news to inform people anymore they alter the presentations of their investigations in order to appease their various shareholders, and wouldn’t you know it, their largest shareholders are corporations or affiliated persons. Just like every other news organization that gets large enough now days.
No, because unlike you media companies are liable to be sued for false statements.
If corporations really are in control of media companies, then a competitor of Verizon could easily pressure/bribe them to exaggerate or falsify the accusation.
May = just outside her home being arrested with a knife ->
This article is crazy if you read it. If the quality of his requests felt real, especially from a non government email address, these things must cone in shitty all the time.
This is the question the entire article avoids.
The article is written as if to try and get you to avoid asking it too.
“Why was no warrant required for the data?” “Why are police allowed to just ask for your personal info without a warrant”
What’s the point of warrants if they’re no longer needed? Like, warrants are supposed to be a crucial check on police powers, and here we are rendering them pointless.
I weep for the future.
If you give the police permission to conduct a search, they do not need a warrant.
But she didn’t give permission.
Why does Verizon have the authority to give it for her?
That set it up so that the material handed over was in Verizon’s possession (business records) and Verizon gave permission. The law is written so that they need a warrant for an actual wiretap (call contents) but not the metadata. Of course metadata is all you need to stalk the person, so that should need a warrant too.
It’s fairly easy to avoid giving your cellular carrier your address (get the bills sent to a PO box} or even your name (buy a prepaid phone with cash). But it’s harder to keep your call records or geolocation info away from them. :(
It was my understanding that warrants were needed to force the acquisition of information, regardless of the type of information. Even call contents are allowed to be freely given to the police as long as you have legitimate access to it.
So Verizon has the ability to say “no” to the metadata too.
They just choose not to.
They choose to sell it rather than force the police to get a warrant. Perhaps they give it for free, I don’t know, but either way, they’re not forced to without a warrant.
Because the telecommunications companies are eager to cooperate with the police. Since third-party doctrine applies, the privacy of the company, not the client, is considered, so Verizon happily consents to all police searches of phone records.
This has been discussed all the way up with SCOTUS (dominated by the Federalist Society at the time) so its legal.
Oh I’m not saying it’s illegal, just that it should be.
On that we have no disagreement.
Lol!
Not related to the issue at hand, but do people really use dating sections of porn sites?
mefhamphetamine is a hell of a drug