11 comments

  • fusslo 8 minutes ago

    > The warrants included a search through all of her photos, videos, emails, text messages, and location data over a two-month period, as well as a time-unlimited search for 26 keywords, including words as broad as “bike,” “assault,” “celebration,” and “right,” that allowed police to comb through years of Armendariz’s private and sensitive data—all supposedly to look for evidence related to the alleged simple assault.

    That's an insane overreaction and overreach. There's some quotes from officers during the protests that are particularly troubling, too.

    The article links directly to the ruling: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...

    I wonder how the Sargent and Judge who approved these searches feel. If they take their jobs seriously, I do hope that they are more critical of search warrant applications in the future.

  • hn_acker an hour ago

    The original title is:

    > Victory! Tenth Circuit Finds Fourth Amendment Doesn’t Support Broad Search of Protesters’ Devices and Digital Data

  • jmward01 an hour ago

    I think the top (tech) stories of the decade are likely: Privacy, AI and the energy transition.

    I hope that as a society we are starting to learn, and protect, the value of, and right to, privacy.

    • sneak 42 minutes ago

      Germans have mass surveillance and they are perhaps the most privacy-conscious society in the world, because of their (relatively recent) authoritarian catastrophe.

      I doubt anyone else will learn the lesson without something similar happening. Even some Germans are forgetting it already.

  • JohnTHaller 24 minutes ago

    The Republican administration will ignore this court order as well

  • mothballed an hour ago

    It's an awesome victory. But until the penalty for violating rights under color of law is something real (like serious jail + restitution, barred from further public employment, etc) they will keep doing it.

    • patrickmay 44 minutes ago

      A good start would be requiring police officers to carry individual liability insurance so that municipalities aren't paying for these lawsuits. If someone can't get insurance, they can no longer be a cop.

      • SoftTalker 23 minutes ago

        It's going to be cheaper for municipalites to have group insurance for this (or self-insure) than to have to pay the police enough that they can afford their own insurance.

        • mothballed 19 minutes ago

          Ultimately it's the civil authorities and upper brass that want these intrusions. The insurance issue is easily worked around by hiring green recruits at a very high "bonus" to be used as basically burner employees to burn through their insurance and do the illegal stuff under their identity.

          It has to be a criminal thing because the top brass and civil servants need RICO like prosecution and tossed in jail along with the guy who gets the insurance ding.

          • lazide 3 minutes ago

            It’s already a (very real) crime to do a Conspiracy to deprive someone of their civil rights, which is what you’re talking about. Occasionally someone gets sued under it, but it’s rare.

      • sneak 41 minutes ago

        I don’t disagree, but can we really claim to have the rule of law if there is a class of people who can flagrantly violate criminal law and court orders and suffer zero criminal consequences?