The Supreme court has banned unwarranted taps on your cell phone's as of today.

[Aids Johnson]

The answer, according to a nearly unanimous opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, is no. “Cell phones,” Roberts explained, “place vast quantities of personal information literally in the hands of individuals. A search of the information on a cell phone bears little resemblance to the type of brief physical search” authorized by previous cases.

As Roberts lays out, few of the traditional justifications for a search incident to arrest authorize a full search of a suspect’s cell phone. The data stored on a phone “cannot itself be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s escape.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...tarts-to-bring-privacy-into-the-21st-century/

Check out the story, it's a great step forward for us as a nation. No more reasons to sign up for burner phones as Mickey Mouse to ensure some jerkoff isn't invading your privacy like a voyeur doucher. Here's to hoping things like this based on morals continue.

 

[Jonathan]

Ah of course, they're now just going to stop secretly and illegally invading your privacy because a court said they couldn't. I'm sure they won't continue to secretly invade your privacy, until the next whistleblower, when they'll then stop invading your privacy, honest.

 

[Aids Johnson]

Ah of course, they're now just going to stop secretly and illegally invading your privacy because a court said they couldn't. I'm sure they won't continue to secretly invade your privacy, until the next whistleblower, when they'll then stop invading your privacy, honest.

Eurofag. Go back outside and stare at the camera's pointed all around every city block you walk.

 

[Jonathan]

Eurofag. Go back outside and stare at the camera's pointed all around every city block you walk.

That's ironic :dawg: - I actually don't even know where the closest CCTV camera is near me apart from in stores.

 

[Aids Johnson]

That's ironic :dawg: - I actually don't even know where the closest CCTV camera is near me apart from in stores.

You must live in a nice spot. How is that Ironic? There are no CCTV deals anywhere near where I am, we can still conceal and carry, and I live in top 10 places in America.

This gives a defense for you when you hire an attorney after they illegally wire tap. I know you don't get how that works out since you haven't been around or involved in anything illegal, but this makes that kind of BS get thrown out of court buddy.

 

[Jonathan]

This 100% will not stop illegal wiretapping and 100% will not stop that evidence being used against you in court.

 

[Aids Johnson]

This 100% will not stop illegal wiretapping and 100% will not stop that evidence being used against you in court.

Thanks, I had no idea. My attorney might disagree.

I know you're 16 max, do you know how the court system in America even works bro? Inadmissible evidence is a term you might need to look up.

 

[Jonathan]

Of course, because there's never been convictions where evidence was gather illegaly, nope.

 

[Aids Johnson]

Of course, because there's never been convictions where evidence was gather illegaly, nope.

Hit me with 3 convictions based on falsified evidence. I'll give you 10 thrown out of court for it after.

 

[Dolph'sZiggler]

Jonathan being a dipshit ITT, but the most disappointing thing is his continual botching of the word irony. Fucking dick head.

 

[Swift]

inb4 still being watched

 

[Aids Johnson]

Jonathan being a dipshit ITT, but the most disappointing thing is his continual botching of the word irony. Fucking dick head.

I was hoping you'd show up to take the truth's side. It didn't have to even be mine

inb4 still being watched

But is still admissible in court. You know what that word means, right?

 

[Aids Johnson]

I sincerely wonder if jono read past the first paragraph.

US Supreme court bans unwarranted tapes. On another note, they deny it to help in courts. - The Onion wouldnt write that trash.

Do people not realize sincerely it means that not only are cases being tried now, but cases convicted in the past will be filing for a civil justice on the situation involved? The only reason they can do it is based on the patriot act, and that means declaring your brother in justice alone with his defendant are working for a terrorist organization.

Someone get Jono some water, his bitch ass can't breathe unless he is 3 feet deep apparently.

 

[Swift]

But is still admissible in court. You know what that word means, right?

 

[Solid Snake]

Privacy every where is screwed. Lets not be stupids and pretend "Google Earth" doesn't exist. ity:

Well... I take that back. The government has their privacy. DAMN YOU AREA 51!!! :angry: :why: :upset: