Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
majorchord | on: The FBI Wants 'Near Real-Time' Access to US License Plate Readers
SCOTUS has already ruled that tracking people's movement over time without a warrant is a Fourth Amendment violation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States

avidiax | parent | next
Until SCOTUS rules that parallel construction is a constitutional violation, the FBI is free to track everyone and build cases from illegal data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction

| root | parent
{"deleted":true,"id":48249367,"parent":48248770,"time":1779556636,"type":"comment"}
roughly | parent | next
Unfortunately, “SCOTUS previously declared this unconstitutional” doesn’t have quite the same sense of finality it used to these days.
SecretDreams | root | parent | next
It's really more of just polite suggestion these days, sadly. Except any time they vote against legalized abortion or minority issues. Then the rulings are rigidly enforced.
throwaway85825 | root | parent
Legalized abortion needs to be a law, like the democrats promised for decades but never delivered. When the court invents rights then the court can just revoke it. Can't if it's a law.
aetch | root | parent | next
Abortion was kept legal by not having laws prohibiting it. That’s how laws work.

Also the law doesn’t stop republicans much these days.

raisedbyninjas | root | parent | next
I thought a lot of rules and norms would be codified into law after 2020.
throwaway85825 | root | parent
Whenever an issue is settled they can't use it to ask for donations. As long as the problem lasts forever they can make money from it. The goal of an organization is that which brings in the money.
estearum | root | parent
That's frankly ridiculous.

Obviously you can just come up with another new issue, make it a hot one, and then gather donations on it.

Abortion itself is one such example of this happening in recent history.

danaris | root | parent
Courts absolutely can nullify laws. That's one of the major purposes of the SCOTUS. And you think this SCOTUS would hesitate to just declare such a law unconstitutional?
throwaway85825 | root | parent | next
Of course the courts can but in practice never do. The 2A community has been dealing with the courts reticence to deal with patently unconstitutional laws for the last 100 years.
atmavatar | root | parent
SCOTUS literally just de-fanged the Voting Rights Act, specifically the part protecting minority representative districts.

That's why we recently saw every red state pass new congressional district maps which split up minority representative districts and combine the pieces with deep red rural districts.

parineum | root | parent
Yes and your suggestion otherwise betrays your ill informed idea of how this current court has ruled.

They were practically hand picked to oppose the case law of the two pro-abortion decisions. Their other opinions are broadly _judicially_ conservative which means exactly what you're asking, a hesitancy to nullify laws.

Their opposition to the abortion rulings is largely formed out of a hesitancy to act as pseudo-legilatures. They would not overturn a law that was passed by the government unless it was blatantly unconditional.

AyyEye | root | parent
Scotus rulings (and the constitution itself) haven't been worth the paper they are written on since long before anyone on this site was born.
tptacek | parent | next
No, the court ruled that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell phone records. You're going to get to some weird and inoperative places if you try to generalize from jurisprudence like this. You do not generally have an established right to move without being observed in the US; the very fact that you're required to keep a clearly visible tracking device on your car or motorcycle shows that.
throwaway85825 | root | parent
Regardless of the legal status if the data exists it will inevitably be misused.
loading story #48250558
lukasbm | parent | next
Why would they care lol
kgwxd | parent
[flagged]
0ckpuppet | root | parent | next
This blatently disregards the factual history of the Democratic party's 1st and fourth amendment violations. Between fisa warrant abuse, and ngo funding of internet censorship, Nina Jankowicz, the GEC, the DNC might as well be the GOP
startpage_com | root | parent | next
[flagged]
Whoppertime | root | parent
I'm glad your firmware updated from calling people who disagree with you Russian Bots to calling them Israeli Agents.
startpage_com | root | parent
Those damned anti-vaxxers!
loading story #48250566