Comment

Comment on Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling

smeg@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

the police acted in good faith, meaning the evidence will be allowed in court despite the warrant being legally flawed

I have no knowledge (or particular interest) in USA laws, but I guess that judges making this decision is a statement of future intent. I guess if you don’t want to be tracked then don’t use services which track you!

source

Sort:hotnew top

_number8_@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
this just means the cops can do anything??

i mean shit i guess they can here anyway, but it’s stunning to see that written down. oh they thought they were doing the right thing? oh that’s fine then

source
- snooggums@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Even worse, the court said what they did was wrong but they get to use the result anyway.
  
  source
- Touching_Grass@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Over a decade ago they had devices called “sting ray” that act like antenna. It captures all text messages in the area.
  
  aclu.org/…/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-the…
  
  source
- Kepabar@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  It’s called qualified immunity.
  
  The idea is that if a police officer accidentally violates someone’s rights while trying to do their job and wasn’t aware they are not at fault.
  
  It’s not a law but the result of a court case. Many of us want a law passed to remove it.
  
  source
yeather@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
In Colorado, until a new law overides the ruling, google must reveal your search history when subpoenaed. This doesn’t affect surrounding states or federal law until their own judges make a ruling or politicians make a law.

source
- TWeaK@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  The issue here is not that they are required to reveal search history of suspects, the issue is that the police is browsing the search history of everyone in order to find a suspect. That’s not what warrants are for and violates the constitutional rights of nearly everyone they searched.
  
  source
- roguetrick@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword searches will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith.
  
  source