this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
166 points (89.5% liked)
Technology
59534 readers
3195 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yup. The only surveillance on my computers is what I put there, and it never leaves my network.
I block pretty much everything else. I have ad-blockers, firewalls, routing rules, etc. If the government wants to surveil me, they're going to need to put in some effort.
Depending on your state, law enforcement can hire a dude with a drone and a sweet camera array, and do this without a warrant.
You may think this qualifies as unreasonable search as per the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, but some state supreme courts have said nah.
And the US Supreme Court says that if an illegal, warrantless search by law enforcement reveals a crime severe enough, that evidence is admissible anyway, because it would be bad if a severe crime went unpunished.
The severity of that crime: possession for personal use.
This is the United States in the 2020s, not some dystopian fiction.
I think that's mostly true, but people can and do get off on 4th amendment defences, even for serious crimes like murder. So if the court recognizes that a search violated the 4th amendment, it's not going to be admitted just because it's a "serious crime."
But the police can and do pay private parties to do things that would be illegal for them to do. That loophole should be closed. Any use of information as evidence by law enforcement should require a subpoena, and maybe even requesting it for a lead should also require a subpoena.
So if someone tips law enforcement off that I have a controlled substance on my property and are willing to provide evidence, law enforcement should be required to bring that in front of a judge along with their own evidence for why that source is trustworthy, especially in this age of AI when people can easily generate believable images. The standard for probable cause should be higher than it is.
So as a mostly law abiding citizen, I'll resist that nonsense. It's the least I can do to look just like those who may be targeted by the police.