4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Denies Your Right to Privacy

I'm forever baffled by morons wearing robes who believe violating our Right to Privacy is perfectly okay.  The latest morons in black robes to defecate on our rights is the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia.

These robed dipshits ruled, by a vote of 12-3, that police do NOT require a warrant to access your cell phone's location data.  Wireless companies, of course, hold all kinds of location information about us.  This data has very valid uses, such as determining how many towers to add and were to add them based on user load on existing cell phone towers.

Come Back with a WarrantThat information should NEVER be handed over to police without a warrant that explains clearly why they want that information and what crime or crimes they are investigating.

Where you go and how long you are there is not information our police forces should ever be entitled to "just because" they want it.  They must show an explicit reason why they want this information and that must satisfy judicial review before a search warrant is issued.

Period.

The enlightened ones of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals or "our betters" as I like to taunt them, disagree.

Writing for the majority, Judge Diana Motz said obtaining cell-site information did not violate the protection against unreasonable searches found in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because cellphone users are generally aware that they are voluntarily sharing such data with their provider.

Judge Diana Motz utterly misunderstands privacy and her own words.  The key word in her blather is "voluntarily" and she utterly abuses the concept.

Cell phone users voluntarily share that data with their service provider, NOT police forces or government.  Voluntarily sharing information with one entity should cannot be taken as permission to share data with other entities.  Ever.

But that would require a basic understanding of the English language, something Judge Diana Motz and the majority of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals clearly do not have.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

*