jetblasted
12 years ago
(2014-06-25) — In a rare unanimous ruling on a civil rights issue, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that it’s unconstitutional for local police to search the contents of your cellphone.

The Court declared that if local law enforcement wants to access that data, they’ll have to ask the National Security Agency (NSA) to provide it.

“The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons and property from unreasonable searches and seizures,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts on behalf of the Court. “Allowing Barney Fife to poke around your Pinterest violates the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.”

The Chief Justice noted that the practice is not only unconstitutional, but unnecessary, since the NSA already has all of that data and more, stored in its secret server farms.

“Why should the local district attorney waste resources hacking a phone,” Roberts wrote, “when the NSA could simply send him the zip file?”
DrMaddVibe
12 years ago

(2014-06-25) — In a rare unanimous ruling on a civil rights issue, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that it’s unconstitutional for local police to search the contents of your cellphone.

The Court declared that if local law enforcement wants to access that data, they’ll have to ask the National Security Agency (NSA) to provide it.

“The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons and property from unreasonable searches and seizures,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts on behalf of the Court. “Allowing Barney Fife to poke around your Pinterest violates the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.”

The Chief Justice noted that the practice is not only unconstitutional, but unnecessary, since the NSA already has all of that data and more, stored in its secret server farms.

“Why should the local district attorney waste resources hacking a phone,” Roberts wrote, “when the NSA could simply send him the zip file?”

jetblasted wrote:



See?


It's EXACTLY what I wrote in an earlier post isn't it?
jetblasted
12 years ago
DrMaddVibe
12 years ago

um . . .

jetblasted wrote:




No "um..."


It's exactly like I said.
teedubbya
12 years ago
I think he is saying the op was satire or a joke.
DrMaddVibe
12 years ago

Is this going to stop the NSA? The FBI? The CIA? Any Homeland Security cottage industry division that pops up like dandelions all over the side of highways?








NO!










This is just to make the SCOTUS appear like there's some type of "fairness" and when...yes WHEN the riots start...they don't want them happening at their workplace or homes.



It's not like we're going to go full Nazi Party and have people asking for papers...hell, we just let people stream across the borders anyways....

DrMaddVibe wrote:




I really hate repeating myself, but sometimes it's necessary.
jetblasted
12 years ago
um . . .

It's a satire piece . . .

I don't follow all your postings DMV, so I don't know what you're talking about.

frankj1
12 years ago

um . . .

It's a satire piece . . .

I don't follow all your postings DMV, so I don't know what you're talking about.

jetblasted wrote:


he missed the joke...but one might say there is truth in jest?
Users browsing this topic