If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Court rules that police can put video cameras on private property without a warrant. So yeah, you aren't allowed to remove that cam you found in your bathroom. It's legal...stuff   (arstechnica.com) divider line 178
    More: Asinine, private property, Fourth Amendment, court ruling, expectation of privacy, Malaga, Katz, thermal imaging, lawsuits  
•       •       •

17638 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2012 at 5:09 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-31 09:16:39 AM

randomjsa: Raharu: Of course RandomWhargarble is all for a police state.

You're a moron. You have no expectation of privacy in an open field which is why the police can put cameras there. It's also why they could stand there and do the same damn thing as the cameras.


Except that at some point it becomes different. A camera is an unattended 24/7 monitoring device, much like a GPS tracker on a vehicle, which the Supreme Court has determined that if the device is used long term (like, for a month), it does indeed require a warrant. Short term use doesn't, and they didn't set a bright line on when it is required, but I would expect that because the issues are very similar, setting a camera on *PRIVATE* property for long term will require a warrant, even if it is outside the curtilage. Otherwise you'll have two pretty much identical situations (long term public monitoring in open areas), one of which requires a warrant, and one of which doesn't.

/Not that logic need dictate what the Supreme Court thinks, of course.
 
2012-10-31 09:18:59 AM

Z-clipped: randomjsa: You're a moron. You have no expectation of privacy in an open field which is why the police can put cameras there. It's also why they could stand there and do the same damn thing as the cameras.

You're saying that police can trespass on private property any time they like as part of an unwarranted surveillance? And you're calling someone else a moron?


You're the moron for believing otherwise. We may not *LIKE* it, but currently, that is the law.
 
2012-10-31 09:19:59 AM

sodomizer: nmrsnr: the Open Fields Doctrine they refer to is pretty clear that unless it's within a white picket fence around your house, you have no 4th amendment protections.

When you think about it, this is rational. It allows you to use your home for private activities, but anything on a larger scale is presumed to affect society at large and is able to be monitored. It also takes into account the nature of law enforcement having access to airplanes (flying machines, they're new, you probably haven't heard of them, he said, adjusting his iPod).


Conduct your illicit activities underground. It shields you from all sorts of monitoring.
 
2012-10-31 09:20:16 AM

sodomizer: nmrsnr: the Open Fields Doctrine they refer to is pretty clear that unless it's within a white picket fence around your house, you have no 4th amendment protections.

When you think about it, this is rational. It allows you to use your home for private activities, but anything on a larger scale is presumed to affect society at large and is able to be monitored. It also takes into account the nature of law enforcement having access to airplanes (flying machines, they're new, you probably haven't heard of them, he said, adjusting his iPod).


The presumtion is falacy, see meth labs.
 
2012-10-31 09:24:30 AM

Public Savant: You know, I'd rather go to Russia than I'd go to the states these days.


While this headline is clearly overblown, I'm still beginning to think about whether I really want to go back to the US. Japan's looking more and more attractive, radioactive ocean and all.

Maybe I'll just stick around and wait for Godzilla to show up.
 
2012-10-31 09:26:25 AM

Weaver95: ladyfortuna: Maybe I can't move it, but I can damn well hang my panties on it so they can't see anything.

/come at me, bros-in-blue

i'd patch into the video feed and make the cops watch hours and hours of spongebob squarepants.


Video feedback loop
 
2012-10-31 09:27:49 AM

dittybopper: You're the moron for believing otherwise. We may not *LIKE* it, but currently, that is the law.


Can I get a citation? Because the case law I'm reading states otherwise.
 
2012-10-31 09:27:54 AM

LadyBelgara: Public Savant: You know, I'd rather go to Russia than I'd go to the states these days.

While this headline is clearly overblown, I'm still beginning to think about whether I really want to go back to the US. Japan's looking more and more attractive, radioactive ocean and all.

Maybe I'll just stick around and wait for Godzilla to show up.


GoGo Godzilla. That is all
 
2012-10-31 09:34:53 AM

dittybopper: You're the moron for believing otherwise. We may not *LIKE* it, but currently, that is the law.


I'm aware that Oliver denies expectation of privacy in "open fields", but that doesn't mean that an officer can literally set up camp on private property without a warrant. Especially with fences and signage present. Criminal trespass is still criminal trespass. If he has no official business, I can chase him out of my cornfield, same as anybody.
 
2012-10-31 09:59:39 AM

GAT_00: Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.

And the Republicans on the USSC will stand up for personal liberty and uphold the ruling.


You really don't understand the USSC at all I take it. In general those "right wing" members have more respect for the 4th than the left wing justices, take the following ruling:

http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/supreme-court-upholds-fourth-am e ndment-rights-in-gps-tracking-case/

Scalia and Alito both upheld 4th amendment protections in the GPS tracking case.

It would be nice if just one time you weren't blindly partisan and actually had some facts on your side instead of blind partisan conjecture.
 
2012-10-31 10:01:59 AM
Old news. The time to complain about the open fields doctrine was a few decades ago.

If you don't like it, move to Texas. Thanks to a case way back from the 1920's if the police (or one of their non-police agents) trespasses at any point while gathering evidence, then it is suppressed. This has killed the open fields doctrine in this state. Also no "inevitable discovery" doctrine, so that little ruse is out too.
 
2012-10-31 10:02:00 AM

Rincewind53: Lsherm: GAT_00: Kelo had nothing to do with a police state. I'm not joining your apples to potatoes comparison.

GAT_00: Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.

It makes sense; the first time, he was implictly rejecting the Kelo comparison and turning the discussion back to police state regulations. The second time, he did it explicitly.


Except he is blatantly wrong on his conjecture. United States V Jones as cited by me and others above.
 
2012-10-31 10:03:17 AM

TV's Vinnie: Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.

Another reason to vote for Obama. If a President Rmoney appoints a couple of mini-Scalias, we'll soon be having cameras mounted in our bathrooms to report us if we fap.


Do liberals just blindly post conjecture, even when completely wrong? THERE WAS A 4TH AMENDMENT CASE JUST THIS YEAR. god people, take 5 seconds to look up what the USSC is doing. This makes you look blindly partisan.
 
2012-10-31 10:06:37 AM

MyRandomName: GAT_00: Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.

And the Republicans on the USSC will stand up for personal liberty and uphold the ruling.

You really don't understand the USSC at all I take it. In general those "right wing" members have more respect for the 4th than the left wing justices, take the following ruling:

http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/supreme-court-upholds-fourth-am e ndment-rights-in-gps-tracking-case/

Scalia and Alito both upheld 4th amendment protections in the GPS tracking case.



Sort of. I seem to recall that they relied not on Kelo but on the older (and pretty much discarded up to that point) trespass doctrine. That is that the police conduct was not allowed not because it was an intrusion but because they encumbered someone else's property. It was a really weird way to get there and doesn't at all ensure 4th Amend. protection.
 
2012-10-31 10:11:39 AM

corn-bread: MyRandomName: GAT_00: Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.

And the Republicans on the USSC will stand up for personal liberty and uphold the ruling.

You really don't understand the USSC at all I take it. In general those "right wing" members have more respect for the 4th than the left wing justices, take the following ruling:

http://wjlta.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/supreme-court-upholds-fourth-am e ndment-rights-in-gps-tracking-case/

Scalia and Alito both upheld 4th amendment protections in the GPS tracking case.


Sort of. I seem to recall that they relied not on Kelo but on the older (and pretty much discarded up to that point) trespass doctrine. That is that the police conduct was not allowed not because it was an intrusion but because they encumbered someone else's property. It was a really weird way to get there and doesn't at all ensure 4th Amend. protection.


Jones V United States dealt with two primary facts in regards to 4th amendment. First was following a suspect is not a violation, but GPS tracking is due to the aggregation of information. The aggregation of information the GPS tracker allows requires a warrant. The second was the planting of the GPS tracker was trespass onto property, even though visual site if followed was not.

Aside from that, Alito and Scalia have been 2 of the justices protecting 4th amendment protections. GAT's undue speculation was just completely wrong.

This case will not fall under Jones due to the cameras not being an intrusion into tracking of a suspect, but merely a lot. It doesn't fall under aggregation of information as it is only monitoring a single locale. Trespass would only be a violation of the property owner's rights, if the suspects were not leasing/renting they would have no cause for 4th amendment protections.

I was merely pointing out how wrong GAT is due to his blind partisanship.
 
2012-10-31 10:14:40 AM
Cameras watching pot fields? I wonder how long until the absurd reductionists get here to bemoan our loss of freedoms.
 
2012-10-31 10:19:53 AM

nvmac: SilentStrider: Weaver95: i'd patch into the video feed and make the cops watch hours and hours of spongebob squarepants.

Make it Barney instead.

QVC. True punishment.


Teletubbies?
 
2012-10-31 10:24:52 AM

MyRandomName: Scalia and Alito both upheld 4th amendment protections in the GPS tracking case.


I think his point was that Kyllo was a bit of a 4th Amendment outlier for the conservatives on the court. See Florence, and Kentucky vs. King, for example. The Jones majority opinion written by Scalia was also not much of a gem, considering the opportunity it squandered.
 
2012-10-31 10:24:59 AM

MyRandomName: TV's Vinnie: Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.

Another reason to vote for Obama. If a President Rmoney appoints a couple of mini-Scalias, we'll soon be having cameras mounted in our bathrooms to report us if we fap.

Do liberals just blindly post conjecture, even when completely wrong? THERE WAS A 4TH AMENDMENT CASE JUST THIS YEAR. god people, take 5 seconds to look up what the USSC is doing. This makes you look blindly partisan.


LOL! You actually do think the Scalia is a decent and impartial human being, don't you. That's so CUTE!
 
2012-10-31 10:26:23 AM
While an interesting case, I can see where it comes to being in an expected private location(my house), or an expected public location(not in my house). I define the second more broadly than the first because I don't expect to be captured on film or tape in my house (without my permission). When I'm not in my house, I could see random or expected pictures, film, aircraft recording devices, or people listening in on my conversations(even though they're pretty boring).

Just because I'm out in somebody's cornfield doesn't mean that I'm alone.

When I'm in my room rubbing one off, I'm alone.
 
2012-10-31 10:28:48 AM
Ends do not justify the means.

A lot of people in here seem to forget that.
 
2012-10-31 10:29:38 AM

TV's Vinnie: MyRandomName: TV's Vinnie: Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.

Another reason to vote for Obama. If a President Rmoney appoints a couple of mini-Scalias, we'll soon be having cameras mounted in our bathrooms to report us if we fap.

Do liberals just blindly post conjecture, even when completely wrong? THERE WAS A 4TH AMENDMENT CASE JUST THIS YEAR. god people, take 5 seconds to look up what the USSC is doing. This makes you look blindly partisan.

LOL! You actually do think the Scalia is a decent and impartial human being, don't you. That's so CUTE!


No one is impartial. Everyone pushes their own agenda. Face it, impartial rulings are a thing of the past.
 
2012-10-31 10:33:59 AM

yves0010: No one is impartial. Everyone pushes their own agenda. Face it, impartial rulings are a thing of the past.


True. Bush v. Gore certainly taught us that much. But still... Anton Scalia is an enormous asshole, by far surpassing the other current justices.
 
2012-10-31 10:35:02 AM

yves0010: No one is impartial. Everyone pushes their own agenda. Face it, impartial rulings are a thing of the past.


Yeah, we're talking about Sc-FUGGING-lia here, who's grasp of Democracy is feeble at best. And Clarence Thomas? Hell, that guy would even overturn the 13th Amendment if he had the chance (and then sing a happy tune as he's lead off in chains to work the cotton fields at Massuh Limbaugh's plantation).
 
2012-10-31 10:37:52 AM

MyRandomName:

Jones V United States dealt with two primary facts in regards to 4th amendment. First was following a suspect is not a violation, but GPS tracking is due to the aggregation of information. The aggregation of information the GPS tracker allows requires a warrant. The second was the planting of the GPS tracker was trespass onto property, even though visual site if followed was not.

Aside from that, Alito and Scalia have been 2 of the justices protecting 4th amendment protections.



Scalia in Hudson v. Michigan openly advocated doing away with the exclusionary rule. Doing so would give the 4th absolutely no teeth at all. Further he has supported roadblocks with drug dogs and allowing police to do outside the clothes drug searches.

Scalia is no friend of the 4th Amendment. He has been handing down pro-government decisions since the 1980's. See, but *now* after a couple decades that old bastard is changing his tune. I'm not prepared to call him "pro 4th amendment" after only four or five years of only slighly less crazy opinions.



In re Jones:
I understand what you were trying to refute. Your conclusions about who supported what are completely off the reservation, and that's part of the problem. The opinion that will have the most value for precedent has fark-all to do with aggregation. It is strictly about straight government trespass. It's a ridiculous ruling.

The one you're referring to, the one that truly talked about aggregation and why this was a search in the modern context, was where Breyer, Kagan, and Ginsberg went. Unfortunately it is a concurring opinion and carries very little force with it. It certainly isn't the law of the land.
 
2012-10-31 10:52:18 AM

Rincewind53: First off, it was the District Court, not a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court. Not only that, but it's a Wisconsin District Court, so this decision is binding only in that court's jurisdiction. So before all of you go off screaming about the destruction of our civil liberties, slow down.

Second, if this gets appealed, I think there's a decent chance the Circuit Court will decide to follow the reasoning of United States v. Jones and rule that any continuous warrantless trespassing is unconstitutional.

Third, this does make some sense under the old doctrine, where the Court (arguably sensibly) ruled that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on your property miles from where you actually live.


Came here to say this.
 
2012-10-31 10:52:28 AM
I suspect that if you find a security camera in your field and tear it down, the government is then going to charge you with "destruction of public property", too.
 
2012-10-31 10:52:30 AM

Z-clipped: yves0010: No one is impartial. Everyone pushes their own agenda. Face it, impartial rulings are a thing of the past.

True. Bush v. Gore certainly taught us that much. But still... Anton Scalia is an enormous asshole, by far surpassing the other current justices.


Just more brazen, no more impartial than the others. So it's really just a wash.
 
2012-10-31 10:57:56 AM

Rincewind53: First off, it was the District Court, not a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court. Not only that, but it's a Wisconsin District Court, so this decision is binding only in that court's jurisdiction. So before all of you go off screaming about the destruction of our civil liberties, slow down.

Second, if this gets appealed, I think there's a decent chance the Circuit Court will decide to follow the reasoning of United States v. Jones and rule that any continuous warrantless trespassing is unconstitutional.

Third, this does make some sense under the old doctrine, where the Court (arguably sensibly) ruled that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on your property miles from where you actually live.


Fourth, having actually read the article it's talking about an open field not a bathroom or any other part of a residence.

Of course, I'm just an IT guy not a lawyer.
 
2012-10-31 11:10:00 AM

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Just more brazen, no more impartial than the others. So it's really just a wash.


I didn't say he was more impartial. I haven't studied enough law to make that argument, (though I do suspect it's probably demonstrably true)... No... as a citizen of the United States who has to live with the effects of his rulings and behavior I said he was a huge, monstrous, gaping asshole, and I stand by that opinion.
 
2012-10-31 11:17:41 AM

serial_crusher: Now, subby seems to indicate that because it's legal for them to put it there, it's illegal for you to remove it. Is that necessarily the case?


I'd imagine if you hit them with some form of restraining order at the same time, especially if you were female, you wouldn't find many people eager to contest it wasn't.
 
2012-10-31 11:25:49 AM
We have no rights except those they choose to extend to us no matter what some 200+ year old piece of parchment might say. Big brother is watching.
 
2012-10-31 11:31:50 AM
Does this mean that all the remote IED's and boobytraps doomsday bunker heroes have prepared can legally be disarmed or detonated by a bored precinct constable with some spare time?
 
2012-10-31 11:32:26 AM
FTFA:
There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields."

Huh...I would have thought there would have been interest in not having a, you know, police state.

It is clear that nobody has any inalienable rights. Any "rights" you have are on loan from the government, and if it feels like revoking your rights, it will.

And the laaaaaaaand of the freeeeeeee
 
2012-10-31 11:37:52 AM

muck1969: reinforces the fact that privacy simply cannot be expected in an open field.


I think it can be expected. If you own the property to such extent that the area in question is not viewable from public areas and the property is posted no tresspassing, I sure as shucks expect to see noone that is not in my good graces to be in a viewable angle without tresspass.
 
2012-10-31 11:44:07 AM

Lsherm

GAT_00: Kelo had nothing to do with a police state. I'm not joining your apples to potatoes comparison.

GAT_00: Kelo was an atrocity and Republicans will uphold any police state regulations that come before the court.

Yes, gat is an idiot. One day we'll get an accurate census that provides us exactly how many personalities are bouncing around that mostly empty skull.
 
2012-10-31 11:47:54 AM

SevenizGud: FTFA:
There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields."

Huh...I would have thought there would have been interest in not having a, you know, police state.

It is clear that nobody has any inalienable rights. Any "rights" you have are on loan from the government, and if it feels like revoking your rights, it will.

And the laaaaaaaand of the freeeeeeee


That's why the Declaration of Independence wasn't incorporated into the Constitution and the 'Bill of Rights' is a tacked-on list after the powers are enumerated. Even then, the states get first dibs on the left0vers.
 
2012-10-31 11:47:59 AM
What if I hang twine all the way around my 200 acre farm, and every 10 feet post a sign that says "Curtilage starts here" instead of the no trespassing ones.
 
2012-10-31 11:51:42 AM

nickerj1: What if I hang twine all the way around my 200 acre farm, and every 10 feet post a sign that says "Curtilage starts here" instead of the no trespassing ones.


You don't get to define Curtilage. It has a specific meaning under the law. Just saying it is Curtilage, doesn't make it so.
 
2012-10-31 11:53:39 AM
I suspect that if you find a security camera in your field and tear it down, the government is then going to charge you with "destruction of public property", too.
I don't think so. Especially if there's no warrant. Most especially if it's considered trespassing.
If there is a police officer standing in your cornfield where you have posted "no trespassing" and "Private Property" signs and you run him over with your thresher, you can legitimately ask why the hell he was there at the inquest and there isn't much the government can say.

With a warrant, it's a different story. But you can still destroy the camera. Because who's to say it's government property? Unless there's a big sticker on the side of the camera that says "POLICE SURVEILLANCE" on it or something.

It's the practical upshot of technology and the law. If the police get latitude in using technology to encroach on the 4th amendment, people have technology that can defeat it.
You can say it's simply your policy to sweep your field with hidden camera detectors and destroy any cameras you find there. You're perfectly within your rights.
Unless they inform you it's a government camera beforehand. Which defeats their purpose.

Similarly, if some guy is standing out in your field and you challenge him, he would have to identify himself as a police officer or leave. If he's undercover, he doesn't get the benefit of violating the law because you can reasonably challenge someone trespassing on your property.
It's only when he says "ok, I'm a cop, with a warrant to surveil your field" that he can remain there.
 
2012-10-31 11:59:57 AM
The article states in the update section that neither man owned or had leased the property; so, THIER 4th amendment rights weren't violated. The property owner's rights were. The suspects had no right to privacy on someone else's property.
 
2012-10-31 12:17:10 PM

iheartscotch: The article states in the update section that neither man owned or had leased the property; so, THIER 4th amendment rights weren't violated. The property owner's rights were. The suspects had no right to privacy on someone else's property.


The court doesn't address that issue, actually as it wasn't a fact on the record.

The government also briefly argues that there was no Fourth Amendment search because neither Mendoza nor Magana owned or leased the Property. The court need not address this argument because: (1) it is arguably underdeveloped; (2) the record does not disclose whether Mendoza or Magana leased the Property; and (3) as set forth below, the motion can be denied on other grounds
 
2012-10-31 12:23:45 PM
I had no idea that Yakov Smirnoff references were so common they needed to be filtered. In America, references filter you!
 
2012-10-31 12:25:42 PM
In my mind, if the cops can see it from public space, it's fair game. So, if it's visible from the road, the air, space, someone else's property, etc - then tough, it's fair game.

On the other hand, if they have to enter your private property, trespass, break and enter, etc - then the cops/authorities are in the wrong...unless they have a warrant.
 
2012-10-31 12:27:40 PM
Not surprising.
The Obama administration is actively fighting to take away your freedom.

Link
 
2012-10-31 12:44:32 PM

Private_Citizen: In my mind, if the cops can see it from public space, it's fair game. So, if it's visible from the road, the air, space, someone else's property, etc - then tough, it's fair game.

On the other hand, if they have to enter your private property, trespass, break and enter, etc - then the cops/authorities are in the wrong...unless they have a warrant.


As far as I'm aware, you actually have many more protections than just those explicit ones. For example, there is precedent that the inside of a phone booth (I know, I know... what's a phone booth?) confers an expectation of privacy under the 4th. And recently, the SCOTUS ruled that even though infra-red is clearly "visible" from the street to anyone (through the walls of your house), the police still cannot surveil you using targeted infrared detectors without a warrant. The problem is, some of the justices are basing rulings on the actual implications of current tech, some on tenuous analogies between old and new surveillance methods, and some on 18th century statutes that couldn't possibly have taken current tech into account.

That said, I'll reiterate that the Open Field doctrine is crap and needs to go.
 
2012-10-31 12:58:32 PM

Rincewind53: namatad: so um
can I put a gps tracking device on another person's car?
I can legally follow that person, therefore, I should be able to legally follow them electronically.
right?
LOL

/keep in mind, I am not talking about stalking. just following, at a distance. never, ever approaching them.
/I am so going to get my dumbass arrested one of these days just to see what happens.

.... I can't tell if you're doing this on purpose, but that was the exact question and the exact analogy addressed last year by the Supreme Court. The answer is no, the police cannot, without a warrant.


WAIT, WHAT???
But isnt that the same thing as this case, except different tech?
What is to stop police from putting cameras EVERYWHERE and watching everything?

This seems like a silly decision. If the USSC agrees, they will have to come up with a more broad ruling. They hate doing that.
 
2012-10-31 01:01:10 PM

GAT_00: Mrbogey: Oh you can best believe this will go to the USSC. Stuff like this is the meat and potatoes of USSC rulings. I personally think the read it too narrow. The decision will be interesting.

And the Republicans on the USSC will stand up for personal liberty and uphold the ruling.


As opposed to our Constitutional Scholar in Chief who promised an end to the Bush lawlessness? We know how that turned out.

dl.dropbox.com

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

and

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

and

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

and

Certain sections of the Patriot Act, which originally passed Congress a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks with near-unanimous support, have long been criticized by civil libertarians in both political parties.

But the Obama administration and its allies on Capitol Hill have been eager to renew about-to-expire provisions that expanded domestic intelligence collection and wiretapping powers. As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."


and

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.  

Then, of course, there is the biggie.

Lawyers for the Obama administration are arguing that the United States will be irreparably harmed if it has to abide by a judge's ruling that it can no longer hold terrorism suspects indefinitely without trial in military custody.
 
2012-10-31 01:01:52 PM
Step 1: Rent a field and build a dwelling
Step 2: Grow weed
Step 3: Profit

Finally found step 2
 
2012-10-31 01:09:08 PM

gadian: The way it was described in the article makes perfect sense. Neither of them own or reside in that field so they have no inherent right to privacy and so the cops can come in and try to catch people doing illegal things in that field. Simple enough.


I doubt if the cops knew who owned the property before putting up the cameras.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report