Yup. I particularly liked the bit where the chief justice noted that rich folks have a higher degree of privacy rights under the government theory (and the one adopted by the court) because they are able to have gated grounds.
Thus far, this is the only article I've read on the subject, so I'm hoping there is other information that mitigates the perception I have of the ruling at this point, but I'm not really optimistic. Judah On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Jerry Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not only without a warrant, but they can come on private property to attach > it at any time. > > The court ruled that unless you actually post a sign saying "private > property", or have your car in a garage, it is fair game and you have no > expectation of privacy, even on your own property. > > Bastards. > > > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Hey, if you can have your phone tapped without a warrant, why should >> anyone complain when a federal agent comes and attaches a gps tracking >> device to your car and the government monitors you without a warrant? >> >> http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html >> >> It is becoming more and more clear that an explicit Privacy amendment >> needs to be added to the Constitution. >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:326209 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
