Except they requested to search the house and the request was granted by the homeowner. Unless some sort of coercion was involved (and a simple police presence does not rise to the level of coercion) then nothing wrong happened in regards to the search. If they had later requested a search warrant after being denied the opportunity to search, and it was subsequently granted, then there might (might)be an argument of overreach on the part of the judge (or the police, if they wrongly "bolstered" their argument by adding facts that weren't really facts). However, all that is simply speculation since none of it happened.

I'm not a fan of the police in general (or the way the justice system currently runs), but most of the comments here involve rampant speculation and little discussion of the actual facts of the case. This doesn't help the cause of straightening corrupt police out (or throwing them out). It simply adds strength to the "pro-police no matter the means used" camp when they argue those who oppose them on any issue are the paranoid fringes of society. The best defense (and offence) is to remove as much fuel from their arguments as possible by sticking closely by the facts that cannot be refuted.

because he showed them respect they didn't really disturb anything.

That some people find this acceptable is in itself disturbing, since the implicit corollary is that if he did not show them respect they would be justified in tearing the house apart. That may not be what you meant, but there are still those who hold exactly such beliefs. Many of those are also police officers.

What we don't know is exactly what the employer said in the report. The description of an incident can have a profound impact on the level of investigative response.

You seem to have read that post and come to a conclusion completely the opposite of mine. I read it as people (other than police) are not sane and reasonable, and the notion that it is an impossible-to-solve nihilist position is a problem amongst those who are not sane and reasonable.

The statement can be read by inversion: Successful terrorist attacks are not the fault of police or intelligence services. Police should not believe they should catch absolutely every incident before it happens, and those spreading such a belief are prone to over-reaction when the police DO miss something.

I think part of the problem is the segue into the next idea: In the end, its such a needle in a haystack sort of problem that its entirely unreasonable to think they can ever be prevented, therefore any acceptance of that reasoning that starts with they should be able to catch it, inevitably leads to excessive measures, and guarantees more excessive measures later WHEN the next one happens.

Move it around and then re-read: When people believe the police should be able to catch all of them, it leads to excessive measures since catching all of them is, in reality, not possible. When the next event happens, it leads to more extreme measures since the police obviously should be able to catch everything. "Acceptance of that reason" doesn't refer to the statement preceding it, but to the statement following it (despite the utterly confused way it's phrased).

At least that's my take on it. Maybe the author meant it the way you read it, but that determination would really be up to the author to clarify at the end of the day.

This is one case where lack of backup functionality is actually a feature.

Samzenpus was just taking the piss.

Yes, just as long as you're not going spear phishing. That will void the warranty.

This has already been ruled on, though I don't have the USSC citation handy. Companies don't need an acceptable use policy to monitor how their equipment is used, be it computers, wireless AP, routers, et cetera. Your signature on anything is not a requirement before they can start to monitor the use of their equipment.

They're an easy target because what was said earlier about them breaking or re-interpreting every agreement that later creates a roadblock to current political interests is true. The US government has been doing that since its inception. Hell, Jackson is considered one of the top 10 US Presidents in pretty much any list, and he embodied the idea that the US could manufacture reasons to bypass the Constitution and the rule of law if either were "inconvenient." The Trail of Tears is but one example of the culmination of Jackson's efforts to ignore the Constitution and the US government's treaty obligations with a foreign nation.

So, I guess it's just fine if the feds do it in your favor but not if you don't like it?

This concept is the cornerstone of US political differences. Those who scream loudest about their extremist positions are the embodiment of the above, but will also argue vociferously that they are not (since it would make them hypocrites, after all).

What about SSI? That has no work requirement. The only requirement is that your disability is expected to last a year or more, or to end only in the event of your death.

Actually, not much is needed to expand the printable area. All you need are longer rods and rails. They're made exactly the same way with the same tolerances.

They're checking for TATP or something similar, even though no sane person would carry it in liquid form. Even terrorists aren't that stupid. They carry the solid ingredients and mix it in the bathroom (and that's the stupid ones, since creating liquid explosives like that require careful temperature control lest they create an explosion just large enough to kill themselves).

Unfortunately, those who have no problem with Social Security will continue to bury their heads in the sand by believing US government projections.

The American people were sold a bill of goods, and most are too ignorant to realize it.

It's only solvent for decades because of the Treasury IOUs. IOUs that must be paid from the same entity to itself. The money has to come from somewhere, be it increased taxes, decreased benefits, or inflation of the money supply. This will happen long before the fund "runs dry."