Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Is private spyware on mobile phones breaking and entering?
Is private spyware on mobile phones breaking and entering?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Of course not; by downloading those apps, you opted in.
Of course not; by downloading those apps, you opted in.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Depends on what you consented to when the listed the permissions. If they did not disclose that the app could turn on the camera and/or mike without the owner's permission, then you have a case. If they did, and you clicked yes, then shame on you.Of course not; by downloading those apps, you opted in.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I see where you are going on it being interesting, but I don't think it would work. The Third Amendment is really about seizure of assets (your space).
Seems like a slam dunk Fourth Amendment case, though.
I see where you are going on it being interesting, but I don't think it would work. The Third Amendment is really about seizure of assets (your space).
Seems like a slam dunk Fourth Amendment case, though.
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
That's mostly true, but I was being a bit sarcastic.
That's mostly true, but I was being a bit sarcastic.
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
No. You're not quartering anyone.
Now 4th amendment...
No. You're not quartering anyone.
Now 4th amendment...
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Maybe it was only funny if it stayed in my head....
I just got a funny image in my head of soldiers moving into their barracks going, "Awwwww, yeah - executing that 3rd amendment remedy, baby."
Maybe it was only funny if it stayed in my head....
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Doesn't that depend upon definition of "soldier"? is a "government spy" considered to be a "soldier" as a representative of the military arm of the government? If so, does a "government spy" necessarily have to be a human being? or is "government spyware" a representative of the military arm of the government and by extension thereby a "soldier"?
Then we get into definition of "house". Is that merely your "brick and mortar" residence? more and more people are carrying their entire lives on their smartphone these days. Might the concept of "house", given present technology, include your smartphone? It certainly "houses" all of your private personal information on its hard drive!
Of course, the "easy" response from the government would be to say that the "war on terror" makes this a "time of war" but then at least they would have to pass a law to allow it. Hmm...I suppose they already have a "manner prescribed by law": the FISA courts, eh? so then the entire argument would merely come down to whether this is a "time of war" or not.
Seems to me that a person could make a viable argument, not necessarily a winning one.
Doesn't that depend upon definition of "soldier"? is a "government spy" considered to be a "soldier" as a representative of the military arm of the government? If so, does a "government spy" necessarily have to be a human being? or is "government spyware" a representative of the military arm of the government and by extension thereby a "soldier"?
Then we get into definition of "house". Is that merely your "brick and mortar" residence? more and more people are carrying their entire lives on their smartphone these days. Might the concept of "house", given present technology, include your smartphone? It certainly "houses" all of your private personal information on its hard drive!
Of course, the "easy" response from the government would be to say that the "war on terror" makes this a "time of war" but then at least they would have to pass a law to allow it. Hmm...I suppose they already have a "manner prescribed by law": the FISA courts, eh? so then the entire argument would merely come down to whether this is a "time of war" or not.
Seems to me that a person could make a viable argument, not necessarily a winning one.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
No.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
In the Commonwealth, harassing speech is not free.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...free-speech/HNjQn9RLIoJAZb5i4kNqDI/story.html
In the Commonwealth, harassing speech is not free.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...free-speech/HNjQn9RLIoJAZb5i4kNqDI/story.html
ericredaxe
Veteran
Seems reasonable to me.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Me, too.
What is wrong with people?
Me, too.
What is wrong with people?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Is that really the issue, though? I understand that the best approach to limiting that sort of fishing expedition (see what I did there) is illegal search and seizure, not quartering soldiers, but the idea of your property being your "house" for the interpretation of some of these laws isn't quite so clear, right? Isn't your car in some sense your "house" when it comes to searches? So in the same sense, couldn't something like a repository of your data be your "house"?
Is that really the issue, though? I understand that the best approach to limiting that sort of fishing expedition (see what I did there) is illegal search and seizure, not quartering soldiers, but the idea of your property being your "house" for the interpretation of some of these laws isn't quite so clear, right? Isn't your car in some sense your "house" when it comes to searches? So in the same sense, couldn't something like a repository of your data be your "house"?
unofan
Well-known member
Nope. You have a greater expectation of privacy for your house or things on your person, but the third amendment never comes into play. It all goes towards the reasonableness part of the fourth. Any definition of house for fourth amendment purposes starts with it being a place you reside in and then gets refined from there (do mobile homes count? Cars for homeless people? Etc) You cannot reside in a phone.
There has never been a single SCOTUS case dealing with the third amendment. It means exactly what it says.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
You haven't met my daughter.
You haven't met my daughter.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Interesting court case, not at federal SCOTUS level yet but at State SCOTUS currently.
A 17-year old girl has cancer and has refused chemotherapy. Her parents did not want to force it on her against her will. The State DCF* heard about it and intervened and took the girl away from her parents in order to force her to undergo chemo even though she doesn't want it.
The girl now has a public defender and the parents also have retained counsel and both parties have filed suit against the DCF intervention. Case will go to state SCOTUS within the month.
* Department of Children and Families
Interesting court case, not at federal SCOTUS level yet but at State SCOTUS currently.
A 17-year old girl has cancer and has refused chemotherapy. Her parents did not want to force it on her against her will. The State DCF* heard about it and intervened and took the girl away from her parents in order to force her to undergo chemo even though she doesn't want it.
The girl now has a public defender and the parents also have retained counsel and both parties have filed suit against the DCF intervention. Case will go to state SCOTUS within the month.
* Department of Children and Families
The types that scream BUT IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN!!!!
- Status