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."
Dammit, Texas! (Score:5, Interesting)
First you're incredibly regressive (say, dealing with reproductive rights) and then you do something pretty cool.
Question for you liberals... (Score:5, Interesting)
While we're on the topic of warrantless wiretaps, there's something I've been trying to figure out.
Bush starts the warrantless wiretap thing, the reaction from the left is to fume with anger at the horrible abuse of power.
Obama continues it and adds in the whole "assassinate Americans using robotic aircraft" twist, and reaction from the same people is "I support the President on this, though I have mild reservations on a few aspects".
My question is... what the heck is up with that?
Texas (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of people are confused about how this sort of law could be passed in Texas, which according to left-wing groupthink is a regressive bible-thumping gun-toting desert filled with rednecks who hate Darwin and force kids to pray in school.
This, of course, is nonsense. Much of the anti-Texas sentiment results from fundamental ideological differences that go to the core of the "left" versus "right" arguments.
Texans, for very valid historical reasons, have a deep seated mistrust of centralized government and authority. This can be seen in pretty much every part of our culture, especially our constitution and court systems. This way of thinking, of course, is a direct attack on everything that those on the "left" believe in. Even worse, the evidence clearly shows that our way of governing and beliefs work very well - from tort reform, to right to work, to zero income tax (just to name a few) we have a state that cherishes individual liberty, resists government interference, and we have one of the best economies in the world to show for it.
The success of Texas is a sore tooth to those on the "left". As a result, they are forced to rely on ad-hominem attacks and mischaracterization in a defensive attempt to protect and justify their beliefs, even though even casual comparisons of the success of cities and states that implement those beliefs shows that they are clearly misguided.
The fact is, disturbing as it may seem to those on the "left", Texas is beautiful, tolerant, friendly and a wonderful place to live. I moved my family here from the east coast seven years ago, and it was one of the best decisions we've ever made.
This law is just another example (among many) of Texas following in its long tradition of codifying individual rights and protecting liberties. Yes, Texas has some black marks in it's history - but show me a state (or country) that doesn't!
There is a reason why people from all over the country are flooding here, and why we gained four seats in the house in 2010. As much vitriol, misrepresentation and flat out lying that those on the "left" do about Texas, the truth is becoming more and more evident to those around the country, that just as once the United States was the place that people fled to in order to escape oppressive government, now Texas has become a safe haven within the U.S. for the same reasons.
Re:Should be Obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard, higher than commercial or private ones. Simple case my son might want to build a quadcopter with a camera on it for a science project. This to me seems something reasonable for people to play with. Allowing police to do the same to gather evidence does not.
Re:Dammit, Texas! (Score:-1, Interesting)
as a non-Texan libertarian, I find it unacceptable that any government official should be able to interfere with anybody's choice on doing or not doing abortion, but I do believe that there has to be some rule about the length of term, once that term passes, abortion is no longer just a concern of the woman, there is actually a living organism inside of her that could live outside and thus should get protection under law. Maybe that's 6 or 7 month, I am not a doctor to tell. Regardless, it is beyond the authorisation of the federal government powers to legislate such things.