e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday.
in any case, it's good to see this decision. perhaps it's the beginning of the legal system recognizing that electronic data is private information and should be protected.
in any case, it's good to see this decision. perhaps it's the beginning of the legal system recognizing that electronic data is private information and should be protected.
edit: source -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7931548
[edit: to the totally confused. My comment is political satire. And it purposefully misidentified which "source" you were referring to for purposes of bitching about USA law enforcement.]
e.g. "a confidential source" that we saw on here yesterday.
That implies some confidential source was featured on HN yesterday. Linking to that post should do none of those things.
In short, he was saying that we can reliably expect many warrants to have been obtained by law enforcement lying to judges. Based on the information (lies) presented to the judges, they're going to approve the warrant, because they operate on the premise that law enforcement wouldn't lie to them.