Accessing meta data of civilians is flagrantly against the law

In the USA, we have very prominent first and fourth amendment protections based on legal speech, free assembly and private documents/communications and housing/dwellings.

The justification that the government, under Jack Smith, gave cannot possibly be excused nor should have been excused by the court. Any and all issues pertaining to Trump and Trump contacts, by definition of a legal warrant should have been limited to the subjects of said warrant. The very reason those clauses exist within the constitution is to prevent a far reaching warrant that circumvents its means.

It is a court's responsibility to defend those, and it failed to do so here. We have reached the point, where I want to ask the SCOTUS if the court de-facto no longer recognizes the first and fourth amendments.

That is the ONLY explanation for the courts, both regional and state and their inability to protect the protected speech of Americans. And regardless of Trump and his potential perchance of destroying evidence, he is LEGALLY obligated to receive a warrant.

What the government asked in this warrant is illegal. It is illegal to withhold a warrant unless under seal(the government did not ask to put the warrant under seal, it specifically asked to withhold information pertaining to a warrant)

So much for Miranda rights. But to make it clear, that is not my chief concern in what would be a legal filing of US Citizens VS USA. My chief concern is that this is the most chilling effect on political speech since Stalin was ruling the USSR.

I want Democrats to understand several things about the government's illegal request: If you think that it strictly pertained to 1/6/2020, the broad language of the warrant to access ALL of the meta data(likes, dislikes, tweets and retweets) means literally as far back as Trump opened up his account. So no, the government didn't even hold itself to those bounds(And the court failed to do so)

And it wasn't just MAGA Republicans who liked, quoted, retweeted Trump's posts. I'm sure more than a handful of you quoted and retweeted to spread the information about what a threat to democracy Trump is. Well, that democracy showed its fate in your loyalty by collecting your meta data.

Don't be like East German citizens with the Stasi or Nazi Germany with the gestapo. Your privacy matters too. #Allprivacymatters. Even a democrat, even a liberal should be protected under the law. Que that Anne Frank poem.

This is not okay. This is the very same action that caused Merkel's government to be upset with Obama's government. This is the very same that caused the Snowden rebellion.

I have full confidence, belief and I urge the ACLU to take the newly discovered information, open up a new case against the government and through legal arguments may the government finally respect the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of all Americans.

 

both Repubs and Dems been doing this for years, it's the corps data, not yours or mine

cloud based cars as a service will mean your cars data is not yours

this is what going to the cloud means, analog had its benifits

 

some want to weaken encrypted data too, the gov wants a backdoor key

"Republican senators introduce bill that tech advocates have warned would weaken privacy"

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/gop...t-would-create-a-backdoor-for-encryption.html

 

Reading these articles show how out of touch they are(and not because they're Repubs, but because they're over the age of 40). Any one of us whose a tech geek, could've told them why this law is impractical.

 

And this needs to change. But it won't as long as either side thinks that they can get whatever information that they want by simply getting a warrant for the companies documents...especially as broadly as they did with Trump as shown in the OP.

There needs to be a law put in place that disallows companies from gathering personal information simply because you use their services. Unless it is information that is absolutely required to keep their service running, then all private data should not be kept. Period. That includes IP addresses, date of birth etc etc. There is no reason that, for example, Google needs that information. A forum, like this one, might need an IP address for ban purposes, but it doesn't actually need your DOB as that can simply be made up and its never verified. A credit card company may need your IP address, DOB, SSN etc etc, but it doesn't actually need to keep track of what you purchase (just that you purchased something), so that should be banned. Additionally whatever personal information IS collected should be banned from giving out to ANYONE. Disallowing any TOS that gives them permission to share your information. And the only information that they are allowed to give out to the government is that which is only required by a SPECIFIC warrant asking for SPECIFIC information. Sure as hell not generalized as shown in the OP. The only other information that they would be allowed to give out is that which specifically pertains to their business model. For example a web developing site would be allowed to give out any information that is approved for the website that they help develop. IE: If a website says that they can be called at "XXX-XXX-XXX" then that particular info can of course be given out as its on a public website designed to give out such information.

In summary all private data should be kept private as much as possible. Any private information should be considered the property of the person who it belongs to, NOT the company that the person goes through.

 

the thing is, free services often sell that data, it's why they are free

they can try to survive on donations, but people need to donate for that to work

and most sites have you sign a EULA, so to use the site, you give up your rights to your data (wonder if anyone has read the truth social eula fine print?)

 

they want the power to see what they are not allowed to see

 

is this the metadata you are referring too? if one posts a picture here, the meta data just comes with it, anyone can view it, thus up to you to clear it out before posting

"Photo metadata outed two White House photos of Trump at work that seem to have been staged"

https://www.niemanlab.org/reading/p...-trump-at-work-that-seem-to-have-been-staged/

 

A search warrant made it valid per the 4th amendment. You can talk all you want on the internet, text other people, but if you are texting to hire someone to commit a homicide to your spouse, 1st amendment does not protect you. Nor does texting about making sure Trump stays in power. Rep. Perry and others have been caught with their pants down. This happens all the time. How do you think the police get their information when investigating homicides, murder for hire, drugs for distribution, and other crimes? The digital footprint is ever present and as long as the search warrant is valid, it is perfectly legal.

 

Then they'll just have to go to a different model. :shrug:

Hence why we need a law forcing companies to not collect or sell private data. These companies are forcing people into giving up their private data because they know that their services are needed, and often can't be done without. Windows for instance in July had a Marketshare of 70%. Sure, I could use a different operating system, but then I wouldn't be able to work at my job as the program I use was designed by my jobs IT Staff to specifically use Windows and they do not support any other OS. So even if I used another OS that could mimic Windows, if I came across some sort of compatibility issue they would not help me fix the problem, and I'd be out of a job.

 

what is that, credit card subscription... then they really have your info

 

you don't have to use the windows cloud services, though they do make it tricky to skip it on first login

 

How is it against the law? And why the fake Nazi comparison? Hell, this website lets me see what posts you have liked and who you follow. Does that make it a Nazi website? Does Twitter not show this information (I sincerely don't know, not really using the platform). And the whole point of metadata is that it isn't intended to show personal details.

 

You're only chiefly concerned with the evidence acquired via the warrant dealing with the case. That itself would be fine, if it were the ONLY information collected. But as we know from the recently redacted released papers, the Government asked for and received information that is NOT germane to the warrant, and not germane to the investigation.

Even Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee(and certainly no fan of 1/6/2020) looked over this request briefly and was basically like 'Uh, yeah, no, too broad'. So even a legal mind on the left side, saw the problem with a far reaching warrant that exceeded its means. So, as I read further they did propose the dates of mid-2020 and into 21, but to me, that doesn't erase the harm done in the sweeping of the metadata because again, civilians still liked, tweeted, retweeted, quoted, etc and have no germane connection to Donald Trump or to the investigation.

Principally, the question is one of harm and whether or not the harm placed on the People(inadvertently or god forbid intentionally) is one that they should endure.

Let's first outline the harm that the SCOTUS has historically allowed or conceded. The SCOTUS has allowed the harm(or duty) of serving on jury duty. The SCOTUS further outlines that we must allow the harm of a criminal trial(ie: damaged reputation, accusations faced by your peers, all of it). Critically however, the SCOTUS has said very little about the harms that the government must face(Briefly, let's dive into Documents-gate. Wherein the 10th Circuit basically argued that the government has de-facto right because it said so, and so the court must concede this point to the government.)

I find that it is a critically lacking flaw that the courts have not stressed the harms the government must endure(we know them as 'rights'. Our rights as citizens is the harm to the government.)

There's one aspect of harm to the government that is allowed, that is central to the question of what the government asked of the Court a couple of summers ago: The jury pool. Should a trial be held, and should a jury deliberate there is the chance that a defendant(any defendant, I'm not referring to everyone's favorite defendant, so calm down) may in fact be found not guilty even if people believe(and certainly the prosecutors believe) that he/she is guilty.

We as a society accept this harm, as the famous unwritten rule of 'better to let one guilty person go free, than an innocent person to suffer'. My argument in court against this broad warrant would be very simple: This harm also applies to the administration of justice itself.

By casting a wide a net as humanly possible, did the government catch the potentially incriminating text of Rick Scott, et al? Yes it did, but it also caught the metadata of those who are not central to the case, nor are they associated to Donald. J. Trump by means of the twitter traffic activity.

The government must accept the harm imposed on its investigation by the 4th Amendment. These people, who effectively have had their identity/activities seized by the government though have not been accused in court of any criminal wrongdoing, have suffered an undue harm against them.

In order to preserve the integrity of the rights of the people, the government must accept the harm of a tailored warrant to the specific person(s) and things(text messages, etc) to be searched. Subpoenas for example serve a similar purpose.

Jack Scott made the argument that HIS investigation need not recognize these obligations and harms that the government must accept. And his dubious argument about the 'unique circumstances' of the case(not the first time he's leaned on that card) is equally invalid. Because to quote Her Honor: The political mechanisms must not overcome the administration of justice. Ditto, the rights of civilians(or of criminal defendants) cannot be overcome by the administration of justice.

Otherwise, the government has an all-seeing eye type of power that cannot be regulated. Through it's broad request, it acts as little more than a political watch list @yardmeat @FreshAir

 

Your title speaks of META data, which the feds after first lying about it, until Snowden produced the receipts, claimed that "more hay" improved their ability to find the needles in the haystack, an obvious lie.

When has Trump destroyed evidence?