A journalist gets around to a story that was implied a couple of months ago but not clearly stated. The government can track you by your cell phone if it wants to; all it needs is a judge who's not conscientious about the Fourth Amendment.
It's great to get this story at all, but it was obvious to me nearly two months ago. Doesn't that mean it should have been obvious to many more knowledgeable people - including a few journalists who presumably should have sources I don't have - long before that? Aren't they even trying to read between the lines?
How long before a prosecutor argues in court that the mere fact a defendant turned off his phone is suspicious? If he had nothing to hide, why would he want to be off the network?
Maybe this has happened already. If so, did anyone notice?
Friday: Retail Sales, Industrial Production
50 minutes ago
No comments:
Post a Comment