this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Fight For Privacy
298 readers
1 users here now
Fight For Privacy
A community to post, discuss and fight for our privacy.
Post Title Rule
Tag what the post is:
-
[DISCUSSION]
-
[CH], [etc.], : Article (tag the country, if not country specific use [ARTICLE])
-
[SEARCHING]: Searching for people/activists
-
[GUIDE]: Guide or how to
-
[UPDATE]: Moderator update for community
Post examples
- [EU] - Title of the link/post
- [DISCUSSION] - Privacy ...
- [SEARCHING] - Referendum ...
Language: English
Rules
- Keep the topic on privacy
- Be respectful and tolerant
- When posting link use tools like CleanURL to get rid of trackers
- When posting numbers or statements, you need to link the source
- Promotion of products/brands are forbidden
- Politics not regarding privacy is forbidden, keep it on laws/decisions that concern privacy
- If possible post Invidious links instead of YouTube
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But once they have it; "Most users are unaware that, in general, once the government lawfully collects information, under various legal doctrines they can and do use it for investigating and prosecuting crimes that have nothing to do with the original purpose of the seizure. The truth is, once the government has the information, they often use it and the law supports this all too often. Defendants in those prosecutions could challenge the use of this data outside the scope of the original warrant, but that’s often cold comfort." From same story linked above.
I dont know how hard or how much effort it would be to used some or all of their suggestions. Maybe this instance already is?
I agree, the problematic thing here is: they have it, so they gonna use it, even if it is not related to their case.
Which suggestions are you speaking of?