this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
337 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy Guides

16784 readers
56 users here now

In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.

This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.


You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:

Learn more...


Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We've tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!

Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!


This community is the "official" Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other "Privacy Guides" communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.


Moderation Rules:

  1. We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
  2. This is not the place for self-promotion if you are not listed on privacyguides.org. If you want to be listed, make a suggestion on our forum first.
  3. No soliciting engagement: Don't ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
  4. Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
  5. Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
  6. Don't repost topics which have already been covered here.
  7. News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
  8. Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
  9. No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don't abuse our community's willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
  10. No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
  11. Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
  12. General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.

Additional Resources:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] smeg 42 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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!

[–] _number8_@lemmy.world 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] snooggums@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago

Even worse, the court said what they did was wrong but they get to use the result anyway.

[–] Touching_Grass@lemmy.world 12 points 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.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/privacy-technology/surveillance-technologies/stingray-tracking-devices-whos-got-them

[–] Kepabar@startrek.website 3 points 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.

[–] yeather@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 23 points 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.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith.