Individuals without a warrant and it led to the enactment of title iii, the Supreme Court ruled that for an intelligence surveillance, it had to be individualized. Third point, smith is different from this case from a lot of reasons. It is not just the government is acquiring certain types of information. Its not that the government is acquiring information about millions of individuals and not just one, but it is also that it acquiring information definitely and not made clear a few years after smith that when the government scales up a surveillance operation, the constitutional balance is different and needs to be addressed differently. Judge, you were exactly right. That the court is to assess the expectations of privacy of this program and not just what the Supreme Court decided. A quick related point. The minimization procedures would be constitutionally superfluous. If smith governed this case, they could collect the records without any of those protections in place and they coul
Billie Eilish, Rihanna, Kristen Stewart, Timothée Chalamet : défilé de stars lundi soir à l extravagant gala du Met à New York
francetvinfo.fr - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from francetvinfo.fr Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Vanhan Paloaseman ravintoloiden toiminta loppuu Oulussa
kaleva.fi - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from kaleva.fi Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.