And while in Jones SCOTUS might have taken narrow route out of naïveté that police location surveillance tactics had already shifted from GPS trackers to phones, here it's obvious that both are key issues. The Court willfully chose to avoid addressing real-time surveillance /14
-
Show this thread
-
Which means we'll be back here in a few years AGAIN, and in the mean time, government will have the power that the court says is so"remarkably easy, cheap, and efficient compared to traditional investigative tools" that it should require a warrant (for historic) /15
1 reply 4 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
Perhaps biggest problem of this decision to take baby steps while surveillance technology is running a spirt is that it create perverse incentives for government to collect tons of data and use it later /16
1 reply 7 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
This is most notably for automated license plate reader and facial recognition. If government needs a warrant to go to a phone company for historic info, why not use these tools to catalog location data en masse then go back later? /17
1 reply 3 retweets 26 likesShow this thread -
Final issue: The odd line about case not necessarily applying to national security. This might bespecifically aimed at swerving around FISA Section 702 (
@Snowden thoughts?), but if "national security" cases become a general domestic exception, it could become sweeping /18pic.twitter.com/cGyDpI0pqe
6 replies 7 retweets 29 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
It struck me as a tactical move to create a (hopefully temporary) carve out for spy programs that are obviously problematic, constitutionally, for one specific reason: it was the only way to ensure strong consensus for a crucial win. Look at the lack of agreement among dissents.
2 replies 10 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @Snowden @JakeLaperruque
The risk of these Faustian bargains is that the carve outs often don't get revisited in a truly meaningful way until abused on a scale that can't be ignored. The problem is natsec cases over the last century show courts can ignore an abuse longer than our rights can survive it.
1 reply 13 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @Snowden
Here is wasn't really a carve out - no statement that rules *doesn't* apply in nat sec cases - just ensuring that protection didn't immediately extend to them. Luckily the "significant interpretation of law" provision of USA FREEDOM should kick in if FISC takes question up
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @JakeLaperruque
I don't mean an explicit carve out in law for lower courts to rely on going forward, I mean among what the concurring justices would have to sign their name to as agreeing with on an opinion. By saying "we're not considering this," they simplify the process on consensus-building.
1 reply 9 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @Snowden @JakeLaperruque
I'm not the authority on law, just saying when I read that paragraph, I don't see elaborate legalisms, I see office politics.
1 reply 8 retweets 8 likes
Problem I was trying to illustrate is that by intentionally declining to explicitly rule on the presumed natsec exception (which we know is routinely abused), they implicitly permit the continued exploitation of the gray area.
-
-
Replying to @Snowden @JakeLaperruque
Considering the natsec angle is not central to the case, and so it is easily avoided. But it is the elephant in the room, and I think this makes clear they know it.
1 reply 7 retweets 9 likes - End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.


