I'm not interested in your appeal to religion, so I didn't read the rest of your screed either. Man invented God, so any God-given rights were also invented by man.

Putting a dollar sign in for an S in nerd culture goes back to mocking Compu$erve. You don't know this is a time honored tradition because you are a noob.

This is the law.

The Supreme Court decides what's constitutional. They haven't prevented these searches. They are therefore de facto constitutional at this time. If you don't like it, you're going to want to change the constitution so that the supreme court has meaningful oversight. It doesn't matter what your feelings say. What matters is what the supreme court says.

Rights are a human invention. They're a good one, but they're still just an idea and nothing more. If we don't fight sufficiently to protect that idea, some other idea will win. There's no natural law enforcing your rights.

I didn't specify an existing case because that's not relevant, as it can be a hypothetical case. I don't know why everyone is so vehement about not looking this up and reading about it, but y'all (not just you, but yes, you) could just do that so you're not so confused about this, so you don't get yourself into trouble later.

And it still comes down to security measures in place which are described in the bipartisan USA PATRIOT buttfucking-your-freedoms act.

Guess what? Neither is any other part of the US Government. You name it, our government has done it, including coups, assassinations, coups, genocides, false flags, drug trafficking, human trafficking, willfully selling munitions to international criminals... and most of it within our lifetimes. Yes, Trump is a gigantic piece of orange shit, but this country was doing plenty of evil before he was elected. Or even born, for that matter. And it will still be doing evil when he's dead.

Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because you don't understand free speech. Therefore, no comment about it will make sense. Enjoy supporting authoritarianism.

Courts are historically not amused by deliberate attempts to circumvent the law, and if you're doing a basically equivalent thing then they are going to treat it as such. It only moves the point at which you took the action to destroy the evidence.

You don't read so well, do you?

You shouldn't say that immediately after you prove you're an idiot in addition to being a coward.

The standard is literally that you think a court might ask for it, or it might be relevant to a case.

This is exactly why you don't do this, as we just discussed.

It's already come back. Google already pieces of youtube together that they were offering separately before. I don't want them, I only and specifically want just to pay to remove ads, on principle and for convenience. But I won't pay for shit I don't want and oh yeah, also won't pay to be fucked with like how Google keeps turning autoplay back on after I've turned it off. Make the service work and let me pay for only the parts I want, and I'll pay.

You've said a lot of shit things, but blaming the victim for being victimized when that is absolutely, clearly, and fully exactly what happened is a new low even for you.

If an insult intended to cause someone to lose status is factual, is it then legal? If so, that helps somewhat but doesn't address the base issue of freedom of speech, especially since it depends on an impartial judiciary.

You're right. It does not matter. Whether someone thinks it is true is of no consequence, if you are not free to insult others then you do not have free speech.

Nobody makes better hardware for this than Nvidia. Nobody makes better software architecture for it either. Their graphics drivers keep getting worse, but the percentage of their income which comes from graphics keeps falling so that makes sense. It is quite unfortunate for those of us depending on them, of course, but makes all the sense in the world right now.

Hint: it's not a dollar amount