5 ms·

The Supreme court recently already ruled against warrantless mass surveillance along the lines you describe: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-

The Supreme court recently already ruled against warrantless mass surveillance along the lines you describe: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-important-supreme-court-decision-making-clear-location-data-is-protected-by-fourth-amendment https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-applauds-important-... What we need now is laws that turn this ruling into action and policy.

iamnothere 1mo ago
That’s for the government, on fourth amendment grounds. But I also don’t want private companies doing this on a wide scale even for non-governmental use.
- pessimizer 1mo ago
  It's also for government warrants on 4th Amendment grounds. It does not cover the government simply purchasing (or asking nicely for) the information from a willing Google, perhaps also in exchange for the Justice Department settling an antitrust action, or for an unrelated lucrative contract. Every "progressive" actually called you an extreme right-winger for suggesting that that was a problem in the government meeting weekly with every social media company making suggestions about who and what speech to ban. The brownshirts are already well-practiced. There is no one on the constitution's side, including the ACLU.
  - ranger_danger 1mo ago
    > It does not cover the government simply purchasing (or asking nicely for) the information from a willing Google This is not entirely accurate anymore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine > In 2026, the Supreme Court limited the application of the doctrine to digital location data as well. Chatrie v. United States held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it compels Google to provide a user's historical location information, even though the data is held by a third-party techonology company.
pessimizer 1mo ago
There have been virtually no restraints on the Executive Branch for nearly 25 years now. The way we elect Congresspeople now exclusively produces ones who have no interest in the risks that come from actual governance, and exclusively act on the interests of their sponsors. SCOTUS has ruled that tipping politicians is legal. Literally, not hyperbolically. Even if the Supreme Court couldn't be bribed like that (although they are eagerly and constantly bribed like that) because they don't have a fear of losing their jobs, Congress is the only court that can try a president for going against court judgements. Doesn't exist anymore.

iamnothere 1mo ago

That’s for the government, on fourth amendment grounds. But I also don’t want private companies doing this on a wide scale even for non-governmental use.

pessimizer 1mo ago
It's also for government warrants on 4th Amendment grounds. It does not cover the government simply purchasing (or asking nicely for) the information from a willing Google, perhaps also in exchange for the Justice Department settling an antitrust action, or for an unrelated lucrative contract. Every "progressive" actually called you an extreme right-winger for suggesting that that was a problem in the government meeting weekly with every social media company making suggestions about who and what speech to ban. The brownshirts are already well-practiced. There is no one on the constitution's side, including the ACLU.
- ranger_danger 1mo ago
  > It does not cover the government simply purchasing (or asking nicely for) the information from a willing Google This is not entirely accurate anymore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine > In 2026, the Supreme Court limited the application of the doctrine to digital location data as well. Chatrie v. United States held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it compels Google to provide a user's historical location information, even though the data is held by a third-party techonology company.

pessimizer 1mo ago

There have been virtually no restraints on the Executive Branch for nearly 25 years now. The way we elect Congresspeople now exclusively produces ones who have no interest in the risks that come from actual governance, and exclusively act on the interests of their sponsors. SCOTUS has ruled that tipping politicians is legal. Literally, not hyperbolically. Even if the Supreme Court couldn't be bribed like that (although they are eagerly and constantly bribed like that) because they don't have a fear of losing their jobs, Congress is the only court that can try a president for going against court judgements. Doesn't exist anymore.