The fourth amendment states States Constitution protects us supposedly illegal search and seizure. This constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure was tested repeatedly in the highest court in America. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush and a candidate who then Senator President Barack Obama voted against, is one of many pushing for an update of section 41. Roberts submitted a letter to Paul Ryan describing the proposed change a judge US government may "issue a warrant to use remote access to the search of electronic storage media and seize or copy electronically stored information located inside or outside the district. "
The following conditions must be met:
1. "district where the media or information was withheld by technology"
2. "damaged without authorization and are in five districts or more. "
Let's review these broad terms in a realistic light. Well, an IP address is not a person and through experience with networks, we could know that IP can not be a place either. What this means is that anyone using the Internet is already conceal their location by technological means. This means that technically the judge may give the enforcement power of the law to search and seize equipment / electronic computer of anyone, anywhere in the world without any cause, because the cause is so broad that anyone using a computer fall under itself. Make no mistake - this ambiguous wording is intentional. Understanding the importance of the unequivocal wording is supposed to be the basis of the work of a judge. This is the same as the judge rigged presidential oath head of President Obama's back office in 2013. Messing 2 of 35 words of an oath that each judge has probably practiced countless times before the mirror, has been intentional . As I said, the ambiguous wording in the update section 41 is there to be abused.
illegal search and seizure on your computer
The judges, by the very nature of this "update" in Rule 41, will issue warrants on foreign targets, not mention US citizens with constitutional rights of US. Illegal search and seizure is protected against countries worldwide. Usually they are protecting their citizens (or offer a semblance of action for after the fact) illegal search and seizure of the government's own citizens. The fact of the matter is that most countries can not and / or will not protect their own citizens from the survey by all American three-letter agencies.
basic applications of the 4th amendment have been tested again and again in states across the Union. due process is emphasized when law enforcement did their work because many, many criminals have free market because overzealous THE manhandled evidence or evidence acquired through illegal means. More common than not, the initial seizure of the citizen in question, even a brief detention account that must be justified. This is why you should not provide your driver's license at the border patrol checkpoints, but it is still a hoot to explain the constitutional right to government employees. There are few people in the country who tried to stand against the test of freedom of ancient America, and Chief Justice John Roberts is one of them. In oral arguments for Utah v Strieff, Roberts revealed that he did not believe that allowing police to hold (seize the person of) someone without reason would be good. Since the research that follows a lawful detention (eg a person arrested pockets where a pipe is located) is perfectly legal for the officer to do so, because he or she needs to look for weapons. .. the proof of such a ridiculous search and seizure should be permitted.
It is no surprise that Chief Justice Roberts brought her back and provincial views on privacy, search and seizure and the United States Constitution in the Internet age . What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Do not fuck up Internet.
0 Komentar