Texas Bills Would Bar Warrantless Snooping On Phone Location 277
pigrabbitbear writes "The Supreme Court may have approved the warrantless wiretapping of American citizens for just about forever, but the good old state of Texas isn't going to take that lying down. Texas lawmakers don't believe that cell phone location data is fair game for law enforcement, and a couple identical bills filed in Texas's House and Senate would provide sweeping protections for private cell users."
Not necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't necessary anyway. Not when everyone willingly reports their location to Facebook and Twitter every time they need to brag about every bite of whatever they're eating. Or every bowel movement afterward.
Should be Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these questions about what requires a warrant should be obvious. If civilians can do it without any special authorization, then it's fine for law enforcement to do it. If law enforcement expects special access due to their authority, then that special access needs a warrant.
Any exceptions should be clearly stated in law, such as access to criminal and DMV databases.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds a lot like the sentiments expressed yesterday [slashdot.org] about Kentucky (Rand Paul's state.) Perhaps you people need to rethink the stereotypes you've been trained with.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:2, Insightful)
I like how you generalized in your criticism of his generalizing.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The elusive... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Texas has a higher standard for search and seizure protection and has for decades. Ask anyone who works in criminal defense (I used to there), the standard for criminal cases in Texas isn't the US Constitution, it is the Texas Constitution.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that I speak for a large amount of the libertarian bent Texans when I say that most of us don't like abortion, but if someone wants to do it themselves we aren't going to get in the middle of it in any fashion other than to make sure that the patient can become fully informed of the development of their unborn child to that point, and be informed of any medical procedure and it's positive and negative effects upon them. Heck getting orthognatic surgery is something that gets more councelling and support than an abortion in many ways. One thing a lot of pro abortion people put on their blinders about is that many women are forced or "strongly coerced" to have abortions by parents, boyfriends, bosses that knocked them up, etc. These women can be led through the process without ever really knowing what is going to happen to them physically and psychologially until it's irreversable. I know a woman that had to have the aboriton process on a fetus that died inside her. She was devestated emotionally for years, and this was something completely out of her control. Not only that she still suffered the post partem but had no baby to bring her happiness. I've also known women that have had abortions pushed by scared and angry boyfriends that regreted it to the point of depression, so there is noone that can convince me that abortion is an emotionally void process that should just be mechanically performed with no councelling at all.
However, if you want us to pay for it, then we will fight it tooth and nail. The govenrment has no place funding chopping up babies any more than it has perusing cell phone records without a warrant. It simply just shouldn't be in the business at all unless there is cause for dire public injury. Also a lot of us are pretty pissed about the conservative overreach of government just as much as the liberal overreach. Personally for example I think the government banning gay marriage is stupid as the day is long. They deserve to be just as miserable as us married folks.
Re:Question for you liberals... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, I'm fairly moderate. Drone strikes should probably be considered acts of war. Attacking Americans on American soil is wrong, we have a police force to arrest those people. Attacking Americans that have joined an enemy in a war zone, and are actively fighting or actively planning to fight our troops (maybe not directly. planning attacks counts), doesn't seem wrong. We don't have a police force to arrest those sorts of people. Bringing them in and putting them on trial is the best possible solution, but it's not really practical, and the military strategy has to account for them some other way.
Whether the war itself is just is another question entirely.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:1, Insightful)
Too bad Republicans only seem to stand up for this sort of thing when a Democrat is in office.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:2, Insightful)
And since you mentioned it:
And since you mentioned it: Forcing said women to undergo a procedure where she is partially penetrated with a probe for the purpose of making her listen to the heartbeat is *beyond* any merely "informing" someone about a medical procedure.
Having seen it done, seriously, shut the fuck up. If thats the part your concerned with you're so disconnected from reality that you shouldn't talk, it just makes you look childish.