News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Progra... by pessimizer on Saturday May 14, 2016 @08:08PM (#11698655)
Instead of depending on generalizations, I'd say that without Clarence Thomas and Scalia (and also Ginsberg, Breyer, and Souter), it would be legal today to record what goes on inside your home without a warrant. So to generalize about conservatives or liberals in this case would probably not be helpful because both the liberal-leaning and the conservative-leaning justices split. What is absolutely true is that the two most right-wing justices were on the side of the Fourth.

All I'm saying is 1) that the next person to appoint a Supreme Court justice, and the last person to appoint a Supreme Court justice, are both New Democrats who seem hostile to Fourth Amendment defences against surveillance, and 2) that the author of the opinion that protects us from total audio surveillance, and the fiercest defender of the Fourth in the Court is the one currently being replaced.

Take it as you will; I'm not hopeful at all, but there's nothing I can do about it anyway. I honestly believe that any justice that Emperor Trump would put on the court would be more likely to preserve that view than not, and the opposite would be true for any Clinton appointment.

Re:Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Progra... by srtjstjsj on Sunday May 15, 2016 @12:22AM (#11699427)
Obama may be anti-4th, as nearly every President is (being an Executive whose rights are limited by the 4th), but his SCOTUS appointee isn't, at least as seen below:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

Re:Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Progra... by hola_hola on Saturday May 14, 2016 @08:24PM (#11698703)
Trump has no principles and flip-flops every other second so how can you know what he will do?
Re:Hidden Microphones Part of Government Surveillance Progra... by woodman on Saturday May 14, 2016 @09:25PM (#11698895)
That is a fair point, but a simple rephrasing sidesteps that and still maintains the thrust of the argument: a justice that readily defers to 4A is more likely to be appointed by an unprincipled flip-flopper than a consistent strong state advocate. It is the same logic that makes the selection of a half empty cylinder rational in a game of Russian roulette, when the alternative option is a full cylinder. A mechanism for a vote of no confidence sure would be nice right now.