April 16, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: If the admin lets them in on their own volition I don't see how it's a violation. Probable cause still applies. The government cannot legally monitor chat rooms or anyone without specific cause. This is worse than the Patriot Act.
April 16, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, BBE said: Probable cause still applies. The government cannot legally monitor chat rooms or anyone without specific cause. This is worse than the Patriot Act. What you write/share through a 3rd party such as a message board or even a chat service like Discord is NOT guaranteed to be private. Generally speaking companies do not share information unless there's a warrant compelling them, but they're free to share whatever they want. And if you post something on a publicly accessible media site - Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, even the EMB - it would be impossible to highly unlikely that you could claim privacy protection, as there's no expectation of privacy.
April 16, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: What you write/share through a 3rd party such as a message board or even a chat service like Discord is NOT guaranteed to be private. Generally speaking companies do not share information unless there's a warrant compelling them, but they're free to share whatever they want. And if you post something on a publicly accessible media site - Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, even the EMB - it would be impossible to highly unlikely that you could claim privacy protection, as there's no expectation of privacy. This has nothing to do with privacy. It is unlawful search.
April 16, 20232 yr The difference is whether a chat room is public or private. I actually think the discord server that this guy used would be considered a public chat room.
April 16, 20232 yr Just now, BBE said: This has nothing to do with privacy. It is unlawful search. If you post something that is readily accessible to the public, then it's accessible to law enforcement without a warrant and thus admissable in court. It has everything to do with privacy because the expectation of privacy is generally the standard for whether something is protected by the 4th amendment. If a cop sees a crime or evidence of a crime in plain view, that information is admissable without a warrant. The same standard has been upheld for publicly posted information online.
April 17, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, BBE said: Probable cause still applies. The government cannot legally monitor chat rooms or anyone without specific cause. This is worse than the Patriot Act. They do not need probable cause to monitor a public chat room, and don’t see why they would need it to have someone apply to a private chat room. I see it as being no different than a CI or a cop going undercover. Worse than the Patriot Act? 😂😂😂😂
April 17, 20232 yr Private chatrooms actually do require a warrant. It goes to the reasonable expectation of privacy.
April 17, 20232 yr 17 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Private chatrooms actually do require a warrant. It goes to the reasonable expectation of privacy. To "tap” them yes, but does law enforcement need a warrant to plant a CI or undercover agent in a private organization?
April 17, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, Tnt4philly said: To "tap” them yes, but does law enforcement need a warrant to plant a CI or undercover agent in a private organization? Actually it does past 24hrs.
April 17, 20232 yr 37 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: They do not need probable cause to monitor a public chat room, and don’t see why they would need it to have someone apply to a private chat room. I see it as being no different than a CI or a cop going undercover. Worse than the Patriot Act? 😂😂😂😂 What's next? The "libertarian" is going to say "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" ? The fourth amendment is truly dead.
April 17, 20232 yr 6 minutes ago, BBE said: What's next? The "libertarian" is going to say "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" ? The fourth amendment is truly dead. Your understanding of the 4th amendment is incorrect in any age.
April 17, 20232 yr 12 minutes ago, BBE said: What's next? The "libertarian" is going to say "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" ? The fourth amendment is truly dead. Took the easy way out. 😂😂😂😂
April 17, 20232 yr 40 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: To "tap” them yes, but does law enforcement need a warrant to plant a CI or undercover agent in a private organization? Yeah. An informant though is a different matter.
April 17, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Your understanding of the 4th amendment is incorrect in any age. Yeah. The reasonable expectation of privacy is the test for exclusion of evidence per recent rulings of SCOTUS.
April 17, 20232 yr 54 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: Took the easy way out. 😂😂😂😂 Says the guy who says the government can use CI or undercover infiltration without warrants or probable cause.
April 17, 20232 yr 2 minutes ago, BBE said: Yeah. The reasonable expectation of privacy is the test for exclusion of evidence per recent rulings of SCOTUS. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a chat forum. If you are too stupid to not understand this fact you deserve everything that is coming to you. You can’t fix stupid
April 17, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, BBE said: This has nothing to do with privacy. It is unlawful search.
April 17, 20232 yr 13 minutes ago, BBE said: Yeah. The reasonable expectation of privacy is the test for exclusion of evidence per recent rulings of SCOTUS. For example?
April 17, 20232 yr 8 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: For example? That is the case law going back to the Katz decision. If a private group is formed, the expectation of privacy can be asserted (although not tested). I see you are avoiding your previous statement regarding warrantless undercover infiltration.
April 17, 20232 yr 21 minutes ago, BBE said: Says the guy who says the government can use CI or undercover infiltration without warrants or probable cause. Quote The courts do not require a warrant before the police initiate an undercover assignment, nor is the obtaining of incriminating information and evidence of a crime considered a violation of privacy rights or search and seizure laws. Quote no such warrant is required if the police gain access to a person's property and personal habits through deceptive means. Exceptions are noted https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/privacy-and-police-undercover-work
April 17, 20232 yr 21 minutes ago, barho said: There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a chat forum. If you are too stupid to not understand this fact you deserve everything that is coming to you. You can’t fix stupid Depends on the forum. It is an interesting precedent actually given pseudonyms, no verification of any other information besides an email address which can all be averted by simple means and vpns.
April 17, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said: Exceptions are noted https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/privacy-and-police-undercover-work Did you read the entire reference? The in excess of 24 hr requiring a warrant clause is further down. Nice try.
April 17, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but it's pretty disturbing.... meg is fixated on biden licking things.
Create an account or sign in to comment