we don't EVER have to be careful about where we draw the line! the cell phone snooping & CCTV networks themselves should ALSO be turned into a crime and stopped at all costs.
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will reverse this decision. They never meant to vote that way. It's all a big mistake. They thought they were voting on the lunch menu: everyone wanted roast beef on rye. How did this other thing get in there?
I am amazed at this ruling. Wasn't it Scalia who ruled that someone didn't have a right to privacy in his backyard that was equipped with a ten foot tall privacy fence because, according to the judge, no one had an expectation of privacy in their backyard because planes fly above? I think it was Scalia...anybody know for sure? Anyway it's a good day for the US. Well done Supreme Court.
but it's okay for civilian police to use military weapons, drones, armored vehicles? America doesn't need the police they need to re-affirm their second amendment rights. In the words of Thomas Jefferson "the beauty of the second amendment is it will only be needed when they try to take it away". Police, fire, cityworkers=welfare abuse.
"...we have to be careful where we draw the line on the protections of the fourth amendment..."
Yes, yes, and on which side of that line should we err in exercising that caution? The answer is not remotely difficult or complex.
The burden of proof is *always* on the state to justify its authority; the burden is *never* -absolutely never- on the population in questioning the grounds for that authority.
i feel like they're treating us like little kids by dressing up in those black robes to look official. really those people are old and so disconnected from the rest of society that they really think that way.
What the shit! The Supreme got something right. Great. Now if they would repeal the thousands of other verdicts they gave that were against the Constitution we'd be in good shape.... I'mnot gonna hold my breathe.
@ewigkase1 How will a Ron Paul presidency repeal any of those. He follows the constitution and that would be out of his constitutional power in the executive branch.
@Mauhadeeb28 for start he would not pass these laws by veto. he would also cut funding to those and use executive orders. He would fight it unlike Obama Newt Romney they are fucking cowered s. Ron paul has already trying to repeal the NDAA bill. I want someone who will fight not cover his privates with his tail
@ewigkase1 No where does the COnstitution mention "Executive Orders".
How does a president cut funding? You mean defense? He doesn't have the power to cut defense funding. Only the power to tell it the military what to do.
OnStar signals are beamed to satellites orbiting the planet, so technically, the information passes outside US federal jurisdiction -- just like all of your cell phone calls, and many other types of electronic data. So yeah, they don't need a warrant, just a communications installation in Indonesia with commtechs and an internet connection. There's your right to privacy, LOL.
@PostSurgeOperative The fact that the info has to leave the US to get to that satelite makes it within our jurisdiction, sorry no loophole. Matter of fact that could be considered spying and treason.
Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court"
@PostSurgeOperative Listen idiot shut your mouth cause you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't get to define what the definition entails. Giving info over to the enemy foreign or domestic is treason, that would fall under giving aid. I'm pretty sure I've seen that definition before so you should probably ask before you start spouting off. Your blogs and lawyers don't get to define what the constitution protects us from. Apparently we extradite so there goes your jurisdiction.
@PostSurgeOperative Oh btw another flaw in your argument. the people receiving the info are still bound to the constitution so they would be illegally obtaining information. It wouldn't hold up in court, you should probably watch some legal shows or read up on what judges will take. I guarantee I'll have your ass out of that courtroom really quick with that bullshit tactic.
@PostSurgeOperative Oh I'm not playing and Singapore doesn't have access to our court system. Law enforcement is not above the law. The judicial system isn't going to accept info that was gotten through satelites. Like I said, law enforcement and the courts are still bound to the constitution so no matter how you try to spin it that would be illegal wiretapping. Thanks for trying but you're still talking out of your ass.
@WashingtonEnema The kind of intelligence-gathering I'm referring to does not require a warrant. Besides, people aren't 'listening' to those data streams, computers are. When certain combinations of keywords are detected, the data stream -- be it a phone call or a text message -- is flagged for review, and the actionable intelligence that is developed under that system isn't used to charge people in a court of law.
Without a warrant. Warrants are so easy to get. You can do it over the phone! Also a GPS unit is only one form of tracking technology. You can use a radio tracking device onto it. It would work just as good!
Supreme court is just trying to protect the states credibility. As usual, people will be fooled by small victories into thinking they're free or in control.
@JackofOneTrade567 Yes, that is our intention. Police are still free to do this, there will be no punishment for them if they do.
We will strip all rights away from people who earn less that $250,000 a year. They will essentially become our drones, hopelessly split down the middle and arguing amongst themselves.
But if you want to join the ranks of the rich and powerful, you can! That's the good news. You just have to vote Republican.
@JackofOneTrade567 considering the fact they let things like the patriot act go,i don't think they're doing a very good job with "protecting the states credibility".
@JackofOneTrade567 just because people lost their balls doesn't mean they respect the government or think the people running it are at all credible.very few people do when looking at it on a world wide view.
we don't EVER have to be careful about where we draw the line! the cell phone snooping & CCTV networks themselves should ALSO be turned into a crime and stopped at all costs.
ytgv3fc7 1 month ago in playlist 1 2012 01 23
~• USA 1 - PiGS 0 •~
No donut 4 D piggies.
I'd like to have GPS tracking devices on the vehicles of all police pigs & politician hogs.
They R Public SERVANTS after all, & if they got nothing to hide, why would they worry*
newAgentPROVOCATEUR 1 month ago
Police should be able to do whatever they want to protect me from freedom. That shit is dangerous, no wonder it's illegal.
FuhrerVonFreiberg 1 month ago
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will reverse this decision. They never meant to vote that way. It's all a big mistake. They thought they were voting on the lunch menu: everyone wanted roast beef on rye. How did this other thing get in there?
Jack194343 1 month ago
Finally some good news
SUBinfinit 1 month ago
So what? They still can track you with your mobile phone...
daPawlak 1 month ago
They do something right every couple of decades.
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 month ago
I am amazed at this ruling. Wasn't it Scalia who ruled that someone didn't have a right to privacy in his backyard that was equipped with a ten foot tall privacy fence because, according to the judge, no one had an expectation of privacy in their backyard because planes fly above? I think it was Scalia...anybody know for sure? Anyway it's a good day for the US. Well done Supreme Court.
psb1964 1 month ago
Ha ha ha , they don't need to ,, you got a Cell Phone !! dah !!
oicub2 1 month ago
1984
sullyvsearth 1 month ago
They got to throw ya a bone every once in a while
GrayEagle48 1 month ago
Comment removed
GrayEagle48 1 month ago
Yeah it's illegal to "attach it" to your car but it's not illegal for them to use the gps already on it, like your Onstar.
kathrynjustice05 1 month ago 2
Wow they did something good for a change
rody607 1 month ago
Hooray. We didnt lose another right within the week
biggydx 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MOXNEWSd0tCOM
It was never legal, and this will stop nothing.
fonkymaster 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MOXNEWSd0tCOM
A huge non issue to make us believe that they have our liberties in mind.
99percentatheist 1 month ago
Finally, a win for liberty and freedom! I'll take it.
62636263c 1 month ago
For once, the SCOTUS does something useful.
SkullOfYorick 1 month ago
u better keep fighting for the constitution court dont stop now
raiden409 1 month ago
what about the gps in all are phones!
robertabshear588 1 month ago
but it's okay for civilian police to use military weapons, drones, armored vehicles? America doesn't need the police they need to re-affirm their second amendment rights. In the words of Thomas Jefferson "the beauty of the second amendment is it will only be needed when they try to take it away". Police, fire, cityworkers=welfare abuse.
ammiralowling 1 month ago
this should be an obvious NO SHIT it violates illegal search! it shouldnt take a panel of judges to see that. god people are dumb
Fogell420 1 month ago
One for us. Feels good to win one once and a time.
TheElusive 1 month ago
"...we have to be careful where we draw the line on the protections of the fourth amendment..."
Yes, yes, and on which side of that line should we err in exercising that caution? The answer is not remotely difficult or complex.
The burden of proof is *always* on the state to justify its authority; the burden is *never* -absolutely never- on the population in questioning the grounds for that authority.
polymath7 1 month ago
since when do the police follow the law anyway?
specificdynamix 1 month ago 3
Hey! They got one right! The fucking idiots.
eBe4IXcept 1 month ago
i feel like they're treating us like little kids by dressing up in those black robes to look official. really those people are old and so disconnected from the rest of society that they really think that way.
RaabBlog 1 month ago
What the shit! The Supreme got something right. Great. Now if they would repeal the thousands of other verdicts they gave that were against the Constitution we'd be in good shape.... I'mnot gonna hold my breathe.
Mauhadeeb28 1 month ago 2
check out Token on the left
LANDSHARK7130 1 month ago
Some GPS device manufacturers just need to up their games, thats all.
garytcw 1 month ago
when is the usa going 2 wake up and stop the jews telling you what 2 do,MY GOD.
nellyyllen1 1 month ago
it looks like there are people from evry race evil JEW and the rest of evil
nellyyllen1 1 month ago
There was already a law against that. It was the 4th ammendment! Repeal patriot act an ndaa!
aircooledvw62 1 month ago 2
finally my government did something right
30958ian 1 month ago
They should attach a GPS to Obamas nuts and every time he bombs a child he recieves a debilitating electrical shock.
batchplz1 1 month ago
wow miracles do happen. now lets kill the NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, ENEMY EXPATRIATION ACT and the PATRIOT ACT. then we will start to be on the right track.
that's what will happen with a Ron Paul presidency
ewigkase1 1 month ago
@ewigkase1 How will a Ron Paul presidency repeal any of those. He follows the constitution and that would be out of his constitutional power in the executive branch.
Mauhadeeb28 1 month ago
@Mauhadeeb28 for start he would not pass these laws by veto. he would also cut funding to those and use executive orders. He would fight it unlike Obama Newt Romney they are fucking cowered s. Ron paul has already trying to repeal the NDAA bill. I want someone who will fight not cover his privates with his tail
ewigkase1 1 month ago
@ewigkase1 No where does the COnstitution mention "Executive Orders".
How does a president cut funding? You mean defense? He doesn't have the power to cut defense funding. Only the power to tell it the military what to do.
Mauhadeeb28 1 month ago
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT. All of them. And they took less then an hour to do so.
BingerBrothers 1 month ago
Wow, this is NOT an impartial presenter...
jackdtroughton 1 month ago
And corporations are people too!
Wait a minute...
*rubs chin*
ruvvjub 1 month ago
Damn never would of thought it was legal If only I found someone putting one of them shits on my car I would kick there ass's
zvwolf 1 month ago
Hell most new cars come with one pre-installed from the manufacturer. It's called Onstar.
srtowner 1 month ago
@srtowner QFT.
OnStar signals are beamed to satellites orbiting the planet, so technically, the information passes outside US federal jurisdiction -- just like all of your cell phone calls, and many other types of electronic data. So yeah, they don't need a warrant, just a communications installation in Indonesia with commtechs and an internet connection. There's your right to privacy, LOL.
blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/09/21/onstar-set-to-start-tracking-sharing-more-data-from-cars/
PostSurgeOperative 1 month ago 4
@PostSurgeOperative The fact that the info has to leave the US to get to that satelite makes it within our jurisdiction, sorry no loophole. Matter of fact that could be considered spying and treason.
WashingtonEnema 1 month ago
@WashingtonEnema FACT: you're a moron.
Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court"
Good luck with that!
~MOCKsie ;-P
PostSurgeOperative 1 month ago
@PostSurgeOperative Listen idiot shut your mouth cause you have no idea what you're talking about. You don't get to define what the definition entails. Giving info over to the enemy foreign or domestic is treason, that would fall under giving aid. I'm pretty sure I've seen that definition before so you should probably ask before you start spouting off. Your blogs and lawyers don't get to define what the constitution protects us from. Apparently we extradite so there goes your jurisdiction.
WashingtonEnema 1 month ago
@PostSurgeOperative Oh btw another flaw in your argument. the people receiving the info are still bound to the constitution so they would be illegally obtaining information. It wouldn't hold up in court, you should probably watch some legal shows or read up on what judges will take. I guarantee I'll have your ass out of that courtroom really quick with that bullshit tactic.
WashingtonEnema 1 month ago
@WashingtonEnema Singapore is not our enemy.
Thanks for playing!
PostSurgeOperative 1 month ago
@PostSurgeOperative Oh I'm not playing and Singapore doesn't have access to our court system. Law enforcement is not above the law. The judicial system isn't going to accept info that was gotten through satelites. Like I said, law enforcement and the courts are still bound to the constitution so no matter how you try to spin it that would be illegal wiretapping. Thanks for trying but you're still talking out of your ass.
WashingtonEnema 1 month ago
@WashingtonEnema The kind of intelligence-gathering I'm referring to does not require a warrant. Besides, people aren't 'listening' to those data streams, computers are. When certain combinations of keywords are detected, the data stream -- be it a phone call or a text message -- is flagged for review, and the actionable intelligence that is developed under that system isn't used to charge people in a court of law.
PostSurgeOperative 1 month ago
We'll see!?
bozolazic 1 month ago
Without a warrant. Warrants are so easy to get. You can do it over the phone! Also a GPS unit is only one form of tracking technology. You can use a radio tracking device onto it. It would work just as good!
wildthunder009 1 month ago
LOL its supposed to be illegal already. The fuck are these douche bags doing barely pointing this out now?
Resoses 1 month ago
Police are going to hate this.
Taluvian 1 month ago
Supreme court is just trying to protect the states credibility. As usual, people will be fooled by small victories into thinking they're free or in control.
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago 47
@JackofOneTrade567 Perfectly said.
polymath7 1 month ago
@JackofOneTrade567 Yes, that is our intention. Police are still free to do this, there will be no punishment for them if they do.
We will strip all rights away from people who earn less that $250,000 a year. They will essentially become our drones, hopelessly split down the middle and arguing amongst themselves.
But if you want to join the ranks of the rich and powerful, you can! That's the good news. You just have to vote Republican.
HomleandSecurity 1 month ago
@HomleandSecurity So you're saying that all republicans are rich and powerful?
Actually, it's very hard to join the ranks of the rich and powerful because of all the success barriers setup by the govt.
Thirdly, are you saying people aren't already drones hopelessly split down the middle arguing amongst themselves?
What are you saying?
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago
@JackofOneTrade567 I'm saying the only way to join us and become rich and powerful with your own yacht is to vote Republican.
HomleandSecurity 1 month ago
@HomleandSecurity And yet not all republicans are rich and powerful, is my point.
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago
@JackofOneTrade567 No, some are just pieces of shit. Some are just cogs in our machines. Some are just dupes we suckered in to do our bidding.
But you! You are different! Vote Republican and you can become rich and powerful and have Asian sluts blow you for breakfast.
HomleandSecurity 1 month ago
@JackofOneTrade567 considering the fact they let things like the patriot act go,i don't think they're doing a very good job with "protecting the states credibility".
warpedwiselegoman 1 month ago
@warpedwiselegoman How much of a fuss are people making about the patriot act? It's still around isn't it?
JackofOneTrade567 1 month ago
@JackofOneTrade567 just because people lost their balls doesn't mean they respect the government or think the people running it are at all credible.very few people do when looking at it on a world wide view.
warpedwiselegoman 1 month ago
NICE!
HabsCanada 1 month ago
HOLY FUCK!!! The Supreme Court got something right for a change!
Apophiswillkillus 1 month ago 92
@Apophiswillkillus Yep ... what you said.
grizzzlyjoe 1 month ago
good news
Gilliatt83 1 month ago
One flesh wound to the Patriot Act.
dmvallaccess 1 month ago
gps on ur car aka TRACKING DEVICE
just say it
LobsterPotsticker 1 month ago