I'm not saying I like it, and in fact I said I don't like it... but the case law is pretty clear and you're welcome to see for yourself:

Smith v. Maryland - 442 U.S. 735 (1979) AND here's the wiki

It has been this way since 1979: there is no legitimate expectation of privacy regarding specific information when you knowingly give the information to a third party.

Its not a crock and I didn't make it up, as my references bear out. And again I stand by assessment that Slashdot has gone to the dogs and the idiots posting these days don't know much of anything.

wiki

This case makes it clear that reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location is invalidated by carrying a cell phone because location information is given to a third party, the phone company. Thus there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding location.

A strong case is already made in case law (more or less) that if an individual carries a cell phone they have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their location because they give their location information to a third party, the phone company. So the feds and the cops are foolish because they had no reason to lie and would have obtained their search warrants legally by telling the whole truth about their use of Stingrays.

But I don't think so, (and I don't want it to be so) because it fails the second part of Justice Harlan's test in Katz v US 389 U.S. 347 (1967).... because society at large would likely deem a persons expectation of privacy to be reasonable regarding their location (especially if out of sight, inside a private home) regardless of carrying a cell phone... because cell phones are ubiquitous, and the existence of cell phones should not invalidate the entire concept of reasonable expectation of privacy. But that's just my opinion, and, again, a strong dissenting case already exists in case law, and is the law of the land.

HOWEVER
the issue here is cops are lying to judges under the direction of federal agents in order to obtain search warrants

That's bad, and judges should rightly be pissed off about it. But no citizens' rights were violated. The police already had the evidence that the individuals they were seeking already committed a crime... the arrest warrant was already obtained, and they're just searching for the suspects, not using this technology to oppress innocent civilians.

The real problem is not that the government is out of control. The government does not move with a single mind... it is aggregate and it is not after anyone but criminals. The real problem is that citizens, including everyone posting here, are uneducated blathering idiots, and do not understand their rights, and do not even realize that they have already forfeited their rights by previous actions, such as owning and carrying a cell phone. We fucked up. We let the steady advancement of technology eat our rights because we were not engaged and did not notice, and now its a bit late to start blaming anyone but ourselves.

The fallacy that you are promoting as evidence that AI is possible or inevitable is known as argumentum ex silentio. And contrary to your unsupported beliefs, and much to the disappointment of sci fi writers and nerds everywhere, what we actually know is that it is not possible.

GIMPshop is BACK!!!

No, no, no, you've got it all wrong. Very few black hats have chops. What white hats have is restraint. By and large, they're script kitties... as in utilizing a script kit, and it takes no skill to run a script. (yeah, I know everyone else says "script kiddies" because they think they're young... NOPE... script kitties are OLD and LAZY. The actual kids have WAY more skills than script kitties,... its ridiculous!).

Then what you want is an early 80's cracker (or programmer). DId everything in assembly. And none got in trouble, because copyright infringement is a victimless civil offence, not a criminal one. Also, either no one cared or no one understood, because there was no money involved, like the overseas DVD pirates today; so ignored except when you fired up your game and looked at the title splash where it was preferred to take credit for whatever, transferring from cartridge to disk, or removing copy protection, and were at times a low kb demo was inserted.

And as everything is back compiled into assembly today, the code at that level is now a complete mess... utterly inscrutable. Back then, the great programmers were "real" men... and authored their wares originally in assembly. That's why it was possible to crack it, because it made sense.

The trouble with old hardware is not whether it works or not. The trouble with it is, as soon as you touch it to see if it works or not, you've already spent more than the computer is worth. If you spend more than a few minutes with it, its like dumping new gold plated rims and a new suspension on a car that is now worth exactly the cost of used rims and a used suspension.

The days of reincarnating old hardware are over (except for the essential computer and system historians out there, who spend their "free" time resurrecting ancient gems for posterity and because its fun... please continue to rock on), and they were over a decade ago or more. The way to go about getting the poor masses to use computers is to make cheap new computers... which they're already doing.

Poor people don't want your garbage, whether it works or not. Poor people aren't stupid or uneducated; they're merely not rich or middle class.

Hackers, even the black-hatted ones, are way too honest for their line of work. They have a lot to learn from the software and video pirates of the 1980's

THiS PoST CRaCKeD By THe aMaZiNG WoNDuMuNCHeR!!

I see we have a seasoned computer scientist in the field!

/sarcasm wtf

FYI graphic designers calling themselves developers develop websites. And they're great at it. Computer scientists should stick what they're good at, which has nothing to do with markup languages nor computers nor programming.

Real computer scientists do one, the other, or both:

1) RECKONING

2) SCIENCE

Not at all! Nothing means anything, unless we give it meaning. And you've made my day, so my thanking you is all the thanks I could accept.

I don't mean to spoil the mystery for you, but I'm definitely trolling. However, this fact should not in any way detract from my bullet-proof argument. Also, in general, one shouldn't be so much concerned about the troll as one should be about their troll. Hate the game, not the player.

I don't like making generalized statements, however, and shame on me if the description doesn't fit, I'm about to do so. And I don't mean to even criticize the Police in general, because among their ranks are everyday heros and legitimate true, ready to lay down their lives, heros. But to make an observation that I'm sure others have noticed, that even though police

it seems at times the choices that the individual police officers we hear about are neither motivated by duty to protect the public nor the state, but themselves first and foremost. Speaking as a coward, fear of injury/death and self-preservation are instincts that are not easily overcome, but members of various US Special Forces and Military, firefighters and deep water and swift water rescue teams, perhaps out of bravado (but so what?), seem to have little trouble doing so. What is it about police duty that makes them less heroically suicidal than those that choose these other careers, when one should expect the vocation to attract the very brave and incorruptable, and those as close to real "superheros" as we can get, like the other vocations I mentioned?

For those civilians that carry weapons for self-defense, no one should have to remind you that the origin of your right to do so was originally one of selflessness, i.e. to protect your defenseless neighbors at risk to your own life or property, either from raiding parties, foreign enemies, crime, or the government. I also would like to emphatically applaud the unarmed bystanders that bravely risked their lives to save a Memphis Police officer today. That is amazing to me... because I just know I would have been running away from obvious danger, and not towards it, as fast as my feet could carry me. And I would not be proud of myself for surviving.

FWIW, material items are definately not worth even risking injury over, let alone risking life. But another life, or multiple lives is worth that risk, and we know this because we have a word for people like that and you probably noticed me using it a lot, and I do because I am facinated by... our heros.

You are clearly unfamiliar with the finer points of intellectial debate or argumentative contention, so I will merely quote again the idiocy that makes it relevant, as you apparently have no idea:

The constitution[sic] is just that, a piece of paper.

You see, you made it relevant! Had you not done so, I assure you I would not have mentioned it.

I will now show that you are wrong with counterexample, and I'm stating it as such so that you won't be too stunned by what I can only assume you will perceive as wizardry:

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Please, tell us how this law is no good because there is no squad of armed men enforcing it. Regarding statutes, it is not how well a law is enforced that determines whether it is "good," but the test of a law has always been whether it stands up in adversarial court, which involves an entirely different branch of government, i.e. it is not the duty of the Executive Branch to test laws, and their enforcement of laws has nothing to do with whether the law is a good one, but it is the duty of the Judicial Branch to determine this. That was how the Framers intended it, and that is how it is done.

Do you think this is a motherfucking game? Trust me, child, I do not "play" with words, though it seems you are referring to what we familiar with the English language refer to as semantics, and I can only assure you, contrary to the often popular and your provably false and irrational superstition and paranoia that they are of vital importance to those that wish to understand and be understood in discourse.

You obviously don't. And I'm going to show you and everyone else that this is so.

It is a point of contention whether initial drafts of the Constititution were written on hemp paper, but we know for a fact, and you are even welcome to go see for yourself with your own eyes, that the Constitution itself was written on parchment, which is no more like paper than your own skin.

Further, epistemically, existentially and philosophically speaking, the actual Constitution is not written on anything , as it is an abstract type that is without form or mass, i.e. an idea and concept, and what is referred to as the actual Constitution, and all copies of it, are mere tokens of that type.

Laws are not the paper they are printed on, nor are they the ink with which they are printed, but abstract concepts that are either universal principles describing the fundamental nature of something or, in this case, statutes passed by a legislative body.

It ought to be important to you that you understand that you are absolutely incorrect with your hyperbole in nearly every way imaginable. Paper is just fucking paper, and only with the flavorful word "fucking" did you even remotely get close to something that was correct. The word law itself etymologically comes from the Old Norse, lag , which literally means something laid down or fixed, and is of Germanic origin and related to lay . Interestingly, law is also a Scots language word for a conical hill which rises incongruously from the surrounding landscape. Laws are far more conceptually and far less materially than mere paper and —in Truth— are neither at all either paper nor ink.

Thank you! I find parody not exactly easy nor easily detectable. And it is nice to be appreciated in seeking that incredibly rare and elusive +x Troll moderation, which I'm not sure I have earned for the reasons you describe and which I'll keep in mind if the opportunity ever presents itself or I have a plan to draw one out. Nevertheless, I really do appreciate your gracious acknowledgement! It feels wonderful and you've really made my day, as I have often enough been accused of being a sockpuppet for more infamous trolls, such as the great APK, which as flattering as it is, is kind of anticlimactic for me.

FWIW, I really really worked hard on this troll, used a thesaurus and everything, and I am very proud of it! It is ignorant, and insulting, and probably the meanest thing I have ever written, as though encapsulating a flame war that never actually occurred. In this case, I employed a simple and yet mildly enticing set up, once I located the specific annoying argument I was anticipating, to draw the parent in, and already realizing and expecting the definitional type of response (maybe I wasn't playing fair), and of course the parent walked right into my trap! And I realize and understand the extent of insignificance I am directing you to, in that it is so very very weak and even egotistical of me to want to create and deconstruct and explode such an inconsequential thing as a comment trolling a gun nut attempting to utilize *deterrent* and "final-say" cleverness on a site like Slashdot, as I have on occasion done in the past, but I believe it an emerging and humble art form worthy of just the merest acknowledgement, and I've been waiting for a story like this to pop up so I could deploy this reasoning, and I hope that there might be someone out there that can appreciate a troll that is .... this... paradoxically, inappropriately foulmouthed, and deliciously, intellectually pugilistic and, if I may say so, decadently over the top and engorging insult. This guy or gal is going to think twice about trying that tired argument of misdirection again I can tell you that much. HA! :D