Politics

486 readers

892 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

Rule 7. No conjecture type posts (this could, might, may, etc.). Only factual. If the headline is wrong, clarify within the body.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

Court rules FBI’s warrantless searches violated Fourth Amendment (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 week ago by pelespirit@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@sh.itjust.works

0 comments fedilink hide all child comments

DeArcy Hall agreed with an appeals court that ruled that "the government cannot circumvent application of the warrant requirement simply because queried information is already collected and held by the government," as the US unsuccessfully tried to argue.

"To hold otherwise would effectively allow law enforcement to amass a repository of communications under Section 702, including those of US persons that can later be searched on demand without limitation," DeArcy Hall wrote. "While communications of US persons may nonetheless be intercepted, incidentally or inadvertently, it would be paradoxical to permit warrantless searches of the same information that Section 702 is specifically designed to avoid collecting," she said. And likely equally important, "public interest alone does not justify warrantless querying," she said.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

there doesn't seem to be anything here