Comment on Verizon Gave Phone Data to Armed Stalker Who Posed as Cop Over Email

insaneinthemembrane@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  May = just outside her home being arrested with a knife ->

  When authorities later searched the Jeep Glauner had driven, they found methamphetamine and two bundles of rope.

  This article is crazy if you read it. If the quality of his requests felt real, especially from a non government email address, these things must cone in shitty all the time.

  source

  • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This is the question the entire article avoids.

    The article is written as if to try and get you to avoid asking it too.

    “Why was no warrant required for the data?” “Why are police allowed to just ask for your personal info without a warrant”

    What’s the point of warrants if they’re boo longer needed? Like, warrants are supposed to be a crucial check on police powers, and here we are rendering them pointless.

    I weep for the future.

    source

    • uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Because the telecommunications companies are eager to cooperate with the police. Since third-party doctrine applies, the privacy of the company, not the client, is considered, so Verizon happily consents to all police searches of phone records.

      This has been discussed all the way up with SCOTUS (dominated by the Federalist Society at the time) so its legal.

      source

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Oh I’m not saying it’s illegal, just that it should be.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • AnneBonny@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      What’s the point of warrants if they’re boo longer needed?

      If you give the police permission to conduct a search, they do not need a warrant.

      source

      • ArbiterXero@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        But she didn’t give permission.

        Why does Verizon have the authority to give it for her?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• trackcharlie@lemmynsfw.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Because they got paid to say ‘potentially’ in order to downplay the seriousness of verizons ineptitude. These news organizations do not report on the news to inform people anymore they alter the presentations of their investigations in order to appease their various shareholders, and wouldn’t you know it, their largest shareholders are corporations or affiliated persons. Just like every other news organization that gets large enough now days.

  source

  • jasory@programming.dev ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    No, because unlike you media companies are liable to be sued for false statements.

    If corporations really are in control of media companies, then a competitor of Verizon could easily pressure/bribe them to exaggerate or falsify the accusation.

    source