indagini giudiziarie | 2024-08-29 · NEW: ![]() |
Geofencing incostituzionale negli USA perche' sono vietati i rastrellamenti |
abstract:
Avevamo anticipato che indagini di massa dovrebbero essere regolate, cosi' come in passato furono fermati investigatori che le facevano.
Ora il Tribunale del 5° circuito specializzato spiega perche' viola il quarto emendamento negli USA.
E in Europa ?
I rastrellamenti sono e restano vietati. Sara' utile argomentarlo.
Fonte: EFFLink: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/08/federal-appe
analisi:
.'.' .... .. ...........
......... .. ....., ..... .. ......., ............... ....... ........., .. ........ ... .' .. .... ... .. .....
.. ............ ........ ........... ?
.... . ...... ....... ........... .. ... .............. ?
....... .......
index:
Indice
- James C. Ho, Circuit Judge, concurring:
testo:
In un'importante decisione di venerdì, la Corte d'Appello federale del Quinto Circuito ha stabilito che i mandati di geofence sono “categoricamente vietati dal Quarto Emendamento”.
La tesi, sostenuta da EFF, e' che avvisi di garanzia "esplorativi" sono vietati dal Quarto Emendamento intendevano vietare.
EFF: "E' fondamentale che ogni persona si senta in grado di portare il proprio cellulare in giro per il mondo senza il timore di essere nel mondo senza il timore di diventare un sospetto criminale perché i dati sulla sua posizione sono stati sospettato perché i suoi dati di localizzazione sono stati digitale a tempo indeterminato."
"[T]he Fourth Amendment was the founding generation’s response
to the reviled ‘general warrants’ and ‘writs of assistance’ of the colonial era,
which allowed British officers to rummage through homes in an unrestrained
search for evidence of criminal activity
James C. Ho, Circuit Judge, concurring:
"Geofence warrants are powerful tools for investigating and deterring
crime. The defendants here engaged in a violent robbery—and likely would
have gotten away with it, but for this new technology. So I fully recognize
that our panel decision today will inevitably hamper legitimate law
enforcement interests.
"But hamstringing the government is the whole point of our
Constitution. Our Founders recognized that the government will not always
be comprised of publicly-spirited officers—and that even good faith actors
can be overcome by the zealous pursuit of legitimate public interests. “If
men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The Federalist
No. 51, at 349 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). “If angels were to govern men, neither
external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Id. But
“experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Id.
It’s because of “human nature” that it’s “necessary to control the abuses of
government.” Id.
"Our decision today is not costless. But our rights are priceless.
Reasonable minds can differ, of course, over the proper balance to strike
between public interests and individual rights. Time and again, modern
technology has proven to be a blessing as well as a curse. Our panel decision
today endeavors to apply our Founding charter to the realities of modern
technology, consistent with governing precedent. I concur in that decision.

Link: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/08/federal-appe
Testo del 2024-08-29 Fonte: EFF
Indagini giudiziarie Chat control Geofencing