1 |
DENIED
|
ROLE_USER
|
null |
|
Show voter details
|
2 |
DENIED
|
moderate
|
Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1732 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Image {#2030 …}
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2061 …}
+slug: "Google-forced-to-reveal-users-search-histories-in-Colorado-court"
+title: "Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling"
+url: "https://www.techspot.com/news/100529-google-forced-reveal-users-search-queries-colorado-court.html"
+body: null
+type: "link"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 97
+favouriteCount: 337
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1698232365 {#1692
date: 2023-10-25 13:12:45.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2075 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2037 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2035 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2140 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2093 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2351 …}
+children: [
1 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1736 …}
+root: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1728 …}
+body: "Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 6
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697635893 {#1557
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
"@smeg@feddit.uk"
"@yeather@lemmy.ca"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1721 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1723 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1731 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1597 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1618 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1626 …}
-id: 56803
-bodyTs: "'act':32 'actual':2 'colorado':15 'court':4 'decis':5 'didn':25 'evid':19 'faith':35 'futur':9 'good':34 'howev':24 'keyword':11 'one':23 'opposit':1 'polic':31 'preced':28 'revers':10 'say':6 'search':12 'thrown':20 'warrant':13"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030779"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635959 {#1555
date: 2023-10-18 15:32:39.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635893 {#1621
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56803
}
0 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: """
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.\n
\n
Edit:\n
\n
> The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence \n
> obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be suppressed in \n
> circumstances where the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively \n
> reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, even \n
> if that warrant was later determined to be invalid.” Gutierrez, 222 P.3d at 941; see \n
> also Leftwich, 869 P.2d at 1272 (holding that Colorado’s good-faith exception, \n
> 35 \n
> codified in section 16-3-308, C.R.S. (2023), is “substantially similar” to the Supreme \n
> Court’s rule). The exception exists because there is little chance suppression will \n
> deter police misconduct in cases where the police didn’t know their conduct was \n
> illegal in the first place. Leon, 468 U.S. at 918–19. In such cases, “the social costs of \n
> suppression would outweigh any possible deterrent effect.\n
\n
> But the good-faith analysis in Gutierrez is distinguishable. True, we held \n
> there that the good-faith exception did not apply, but we had already recognized \n
> that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial records \n
> when Gutierrez was decided. Id. at 933 (citing numerous cases and statutes \n
> establishing that an individual’s financial records are protected under Colorado \n
> law). So, the police were on notice that a nexus was required between a crime and \n
> Gutierrez’s individual tax records. See id.\n
\n
> 38 \n
> ¶70 By contrast, until today, no court had established that individuals have a \n
> constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history. Cf. \n
> Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (holding that, under \n
> the third-party doctrine, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of \n
> privacy in his search history). In the absence of precedent explicitly establishing \n
> that an individual’s Google search history is constitutionally protected, DPD had \n
> no reason to know that it might have needed to demonstrate a connection between \n
> the alleged crime and Seymour’s individual Google account.\n
\n
In essence, the court is saying that this is the one and only time this will be allowed in Colorado.\n
\n
[https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf)
"""
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 8
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697652838 {#1666
date: 2023-10-18 20:13:58.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1567 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1559 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1564 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1563 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1565 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1558 …}
-id: 56739
-bodyTs: "'-3':123 '-308':124 '/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':392 '1272':109 '16':122 '19':170 '2023':126,305 '222':99 '294':298 '35':118 '38':271 '468':166 '509':300 '522':301 '70':272 '869':106 '918':169 '933':231 '941':102 'a.3d':299 'absenc':330 'account':369 'achiev':38 'act':73 'alleg':362 'allow':387 'alreadi':211 'also':104 'amend':59 'analysi':190 'appli':207 'bad':14 'c.r.s':125 'case':26,150,173,234 'cf':294 'chanc':143 'circumst':65 'cite':232 'codifi':119 'colorado':112,247,389 'commonwealth':295 'conduct':158 'conflict':3 'connect':359 'constitut':285,343 'contrast':274 'cost':176 'court':133,278,373 'crime':262,363 'ct':304 'decid':228 'defend':315 'definit':31 'demonstr':357 'design':19 'detach':84 'deter':146 'determin':94 'deterr':183 'didn':154 'distinguish':194 'doctrin':313 'dpd':345 'dragonet':12 'edit':40 'effect':184 'essenc':371 'establish':237,280,334 'even':88 'evid':52,68 'except':45,117,137,204 'exclusionari':48 'exist':138 'expect':218,321 'explicit':333 'faith':44,116,189,203 'fals':22 'feel':7 'financi':223,242 'first':163 'fourth':58 'good':43,115,188,202 'good-faith':42,114,187,201 'googl':291,339,368 'gutierrez':98,192,226,264 'held':197 'histori':293,327,341 'hold':110,306 'howev':27 'id':229,270 'illeg':160 'individu':214,240,266,282,337,367 'inform':11 'interest':288 'invalid':97 'issu':81 'know':156,350 'kurtz':297 'later':93 'law':248 'leftwich':105 'leon':165 'littl':142 'magistr':87 'might':353 'misconduct':148 'need':355 'neutral':86 'nexus':257 'notic':254 'numer':233 'object':75 'obtain':53,70 'obvious':10 'offic':72 'one':380 'otherwis':39 'outweigh':180 'p.2d':107 'p.3d':100 'pa':302 'parti':312 'place':164 'polic':147,153,251 'posit':23,32 'possibl':182 'preced':332 'privaci':220,287,323 'produc':21,29 'protect':245,286,344 'provid':50 're':17 'reason':76,217,320,348 'recogn':212 'record':224,243,268 'relianc':77 'requir':259 'rule':49,135 'say':375 'search':292,326,340 'section':121 'see':103,269 'seymour':365 'similar':129 'social':175 'specif':18 'statut':236 'substanti':128 'super':303 'suppress':63,144,178 'suprem':132 'tax':267 'third':311 'third-parti':310 'time':383 'today':276 'true':195 'u.s':167 'v':296 'violat':55 'warrant':80,91 'would':179 'wouldn':34 'www.courts.state.co.us':391 'www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':390"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030361"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635658 {#1561
date: 2023-10-18 15:27:38.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697634319 {#1525
date: 2023-10-18 15:05:19.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56739
}
]
-id: 6174
-titleTs: "'colorado':9 'court':10 'forc':2 'googl':1 'histori':7 'reveal':4 'rule':11 'search':6 'user':5"
-bodyTs: null
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697718064
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.nz/post/2456087"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697631664 {#1926
date: 2023-10-18 14:21:04.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
} |
|
Show voter details
|
3 |
DENIED
|
edit
|
Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1732 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Image {#2030 …}
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2061 …}
+slug: "Google-forced-to-reveal-users-search-histories-in-Colorado-court"
+title: "Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling"
+url: "https://www.techspot.com/news/100529-google-forced-reveal-users-search-queries-colorado-court.html"
+body: null
+type: "link"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 97
+favouriteCount: 337
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1698232365 {#1692
date: 2023-10-25 13:12:45.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2075 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2037 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2035 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2140 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2093 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2351 …}
+children: [
1 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1736 …}
+root: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1728 …}
+body: "Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 6
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697635893 {#1557
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
"@smeg@feddit.uk"
"@yeather@lemmy.ca"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1721 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1723 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1731 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1597 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1618 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1626 …}
-id: 56803
-bodyTs: "'act':32 'actual':2 'colorado':15 'court':4 'decis':5 'didn':25 'evid':19 'faith':35 'futur':9 'good':34 'howev':24 'keyword':11 'one':23 'opposit':1 'polic':31 'preced':28 'revers':10 'say':6 'search':12 'thrown':20 'warrant':13"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030779"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635959 {#1555
date: 2023-10-18 15:32:39.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635893 {#1621
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56803
}
0 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: """
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.\n
\n
Edit:\n
\n
> The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence \n
> obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be suppressed in \n
> circumstances where the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively \n
> reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, even \n
> if that warrant was later determined to be invalid.” Gutierrez, 222 P.3d at 941; see \n
> also Leftwich, 869 P.2d at 1272 (holding that Colorado’s good-faith exception, \n
> 35 \n
> codified in section 16-3-308, C.R.S. (2023), is “substantially similar” to the Supreme \n
> Court’s rule). The exception exists because there is little chance suppression will \n
> deter police misconduct in cases where the police didn’t know their conduct was \n
> illegal in the first place. Leon, 468 U.S. at 918–19. In such cases, “the social costs of \n
> suppression would outweigh any possible deterrent effect.\n
\n
> But the good-faith analysis in Gutierrez is distinguishable. True, we held \n
> there that the good-faith exception did not apply, but we had already recognized \n
> that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial records \n
> when Gutierrez was decided. Id. at 933 (citing numerous cases and statutes \n
> establishing that an individual’s financial records are protected under Colorado \n
> law). So, the police were on notice that a nexus was required between a crime and \n
> Gutierrez’s individual tax records. See id.\n
\n
> 38 \n
> ¶70 By contrast, until today, no court had established that individuals have a \n
> constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history. Cf. \n
> Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (holding that, under \n
> the third-party doctrine, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of \n
> privacy in his search history). In the absence of precedent explicitly establishing \n
> that an individual’s Google search history is constitutionally protected, DPD had \n
> no reason to know that it might have needed to demonstrate a connection between \n
> the alleged crime and Seymour’s individual Google account.\n
\n
In essence, the court is saying that this is the one and only time this will be allowed in Colorado.\n
\n
[https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf)
"""
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 8
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697652838 {#1666
date: 2023-10-18 20:13:58.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1567 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1559 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1564 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1563 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1565 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1558 …}
-id: 56739
-bodyTs: "'-3':123 '-308':124 '/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':392 '1272':109 '16':122 '19':170 '2023':126,305 '222':99 '294':298 '35':118 '38':271 '468':166 '509':300 '522':301 '70':272 '869':106 '918':169 '933':231 '941':102 'a.3d':299 'absenc':330 'account':369 'achiev':38 'act':73 'alleg':362 'allow':387 'alreadi':211 'also':104 'amend':59 'analysi':190 'appli':207 'bad':14 'c.r.s':125 'case':26,150,173,234 'cf':294 'chanc':143 'circumst':65 'cite':232 'codifi':119 'colorado':112,247,389 'commonwealth':295 'conduct':158 'conflict':3 'connect':359 'constitut':285,343 'contrast':274 'cost':176 'court':133,278,373 'crime':262,363 'ct':304 'decid':228 'defend':315 'definit':31 'demonstr':357 'design':19 'detach':84 'deter':146 'determin':94 'deterr':183 'didn':154 'distinguish':194 'doctrin':313 'dpd':345 'dragonet':12 'edit':40 'effect':184 'essenc':371 'establish':237,280,334 'even':88 'evid':52,68 'except':45,117,137,204 'exclusionari':48 'exist':138 'expect':218,321 'explicit':333 'faith':44,116,189,203 'fals':22 'feel':7 'financi':223,242 'first':163 'fourth':58 'good':43,115,188,202 'good-faith':42,114,187,201 'googl':291,339,368 'gutierrez':98,192,226,264 'held':197 'histori':293,327,341 'hold':110,306 'howev':27 'id':229,270 'illeg':160 'individu':214,240,266,282,337,367 'inform':11 'interest':288 'invalid':97 'issu':81 'know':156,350 'kurtz':297 'later':93 'law':248 'leftwich':105 'leon':165 'littl':142 'magistr':87 'might':353 'misconduct':148 'need':355 'neutral':86 'nexus':257 'notic':254 'numer':233 'object':75 'obtain':53,70 'obvious':10 'offic':72 'one':380 'otherwis':39 'outweigh':180 'p.2d':107 'p.3d':100 'pa':302 'parti':312 'place':164 'polic':147,153,251 'posit':23,32 'possibl':182 'preced':332 'privaci':220,287,323 'produc':21,29 'protect':245,286,344 'provid':50 're':17 'reason':76,217,320,348 'recogn':212 'record':224,243,268 'relianc':77 'requir':259 'rule':49,135 'say':375 'search':292,326,340 'section':121 'see':103,269 'seymour':365 'similar':129 'social':175 'specif':18 'statut':236 'substanti':128 'super':303 'suppress':63,144,178 'suprem':132 'tax':267 'third':311 'third-parti':310 'time':383 'today':276 'true':195 'u.s':167 'v':296 'violat':55 'warrant':80,91 'would':179 'wouldn':34 'www.courts.state.co.us':391 'www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':390"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030361"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635658 {#1561
date: 2023-10-18 15:27:38.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697634319 {#1525
date: 2023-10-18 15:05:19.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56739
}
]
-id: 6174
-titleTs: "'colorado':9 'court':10 'forc':2 'googl':1 'histori':7 'reveal':4 'rule':11 'search':6 'user':5"
-bodyTs: null
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697718064
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.nz/post/2456087"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697631664 {#1926
date: 2023-10-18 14:21:04.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
} |
|
Show voter details
|
4 |
DENIED
|
moderate
|
Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1732 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Image {#2030 …}
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2061 …}
+slug: "Google-forced-to-reveal-users-search-histories-in-Colorado-court"
+title: "Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling"
+url: "https://www.techspot.com/news/100529-google-forced-reveal-users-search-queries-colorado-court.html"
+body: null
+type: "link"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 97
+favouriteCount: 337
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1698232365 {#1692
date: 2023-10-25 13:12:45.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2075 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2037 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2035 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2140 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2093 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2351 …}
+children: [
1 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1736 …}
+root: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1728 …}
+body: "Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 6
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697635893 {#1557
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
"@smeg@feddit.uk"
"@yeather@lemmy.ca"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1721 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1723 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1731 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1597 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1618 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1626 …}
-id: 56803
-bodyTs: "'act':32 'actual':2 'colorado':15 'court':4 'decis':5 'didn':25 'evid':19 'faith':35 'futur':9 'good':34 'howev':24 'keyword':11 'one':23 'opposit':1 'polic':31 'preced':28 'revers':10 'say':6 'search':12 'thrown':20 'warrant':13"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030779"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635959 {#1555
date: 2023-10-18 15:32:39.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635893 {#1621
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56803
}
0 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: """
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.\n
\n
Edit:\n
\n
> The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence \n
> obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be suppressed in \n
> circumstances where the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively \n
> reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, even \n
> if that warrant was later determined to be invalid.” Gutierrez, 222 P.3d at 941; see \n
> also Leftwich, 869 P.2d at 1272 (holding that Colorado’s good-faith exception, \n
> 35 \n
> codified in section 16-3-308, C.R.S. (2023), is “substantially similar” to the Supreme \n
> Court’s rule). The exception exists because there is little chance suppression will \n
> deter police misconduct in cases where the police didn’t know their conduct was \n
> illegal in the first place. Leon, 468 U.S. at 918–19. In such cases, “the social costs of \n
> suppression would outweigh any possible deterrent effect.\n
\n
> But the good-faith analysis in Gutierrez is distinguishable. True, we held \n
> there that the good-faith exception did not apply, but we had already recognized \n
> that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial records \n
> when Gutierrez was decided. Id. at 933 (citing numerous cases and statutes \n
> establishing that an individual’s financial records are protected under Colorado \n
> law). So, the police were on notice that a nexus was required between a crime and \n
> Gutierrez’s individual tax records. See id.\n
\n
> 38 \n
> ¶70 By contrast, until today, no court had established that individuals have a \n
> constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history. Cf. \n
> Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (holding that, under \n
> the third-party doctrine, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of \n
> privacy in his search history). In the absence of precedent explicitly establishing \n
> that an individual’s Google search history is constitutionally protected, DPD had \n
> no reason to know that it might have needed to demonstrate a connection between \n
> the alleged crime and Seymour’s individual Google account.\n
\n
In essence, the court is saying that this is the one and only time this will be allowed in Colorado.\n
\n
[https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf)
"""
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 8
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697652838 {#1666
date: 2023-10-18 20:13:58.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1567 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1559 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1564 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1563 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1565 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1558 …}
-id: 56739
-bodyTs: "'-3':123 '-308':124 '/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':392 '1272':109 '16':122 '19':170 '2023':126,305 '222':99 '294':298 '35':118 '38':271 '468':166 '509':300 '522':301 '70':272 '869':106 '918':169 '933':231 '941':102 'a.3d':299 'absenc':330 'account':369 'achiev':38 'act':73 'alleg':362 'allow':387 'alreadi':211 'also':104 'amend':59 'analysi':190 'appli':207 'bad':14 'c.r.s':125 'case':26,150,173,234 'cf':294 'chanc':143 'circumst':65 'cite':232 'codifi':119 'colorado':112,247,389 'commonwealth':295 'conduct':158 'conflict':3 'connect':359 'constitut':285,343 'contrast':274 'cost':176 'court':133,278,373 'crime':262,363 'ct':304 'decid':228 'defend':315 'definit':31 'demonstr':357 'design':19 'detach':84 'deter':146 'determin':94 'deterr':183 'didn':154 'distinguish':194 'doctrin':313 'dpd':345 'dragonet':12 'edit':40 'effect':184 'essenc':371 'establish':237,280,334 'even':88 'evid':52,68 'except':45,117,137,204 'exclusionari':48 'exist':138 'expect':218,321 'explicit':333 'faith':44,116,189,203 'fals':22 'feel':7 'financi':223,242 'first':163 'fourth':58 'good':43,115,188,202 'good-faith':42,114,187,201 'googl':291,339,368 'gutierrez':98,192,226,264 'held':197 'histori':293,327,341 'hold':110,306 'howev':27 'id':229,270 'illeg':160 'individu':214,240,266,282,337,367 'inform':11 'interest':288 'invalid':97 'issu':81 'know':156,350 'kurtz':297 'later':93 'law':248 'leftwich':105 'leon':165 'littl':142 'magistr':87 'might':353 'misconduct':148 'need':355 'neutral':86 'nexus':257 'notic':254 'numer':233 'object':75 'obtain':53,70 'obvious':10 'offic':72 'one':380 'otherwis':39 'outweigh':180 'p.2d':107 'p.3d':100 'pa':302 'parti':312 'place':164 'polic':147,153,251 'posit':23,32 'possibl':182 'preced':332 'privaci':220,287,323 'produc':21,29 'protect':245,286,344 'provid':50 're':17 'reason':76,217,320,348 'recogn':212 'record':224,243,268 'relianc':77 'requir':259 'rule':49,135 'say':375 'search':292,326,340 'section':121 'see':103,269 'seymour':365 'similar':129 'social':175 'specif':18 'statut':236 'substanti':128 'super':303 'suppress':63,144,178 'suprem':132 'tax':267 'third':311 'third-parti':310 'time':383 'today':276 'true':195 'u.s':167 'v':296 'violat':55 'warrant':80,91 'would':179 'wouldn':34 'www.courts.state.co.us':391 'www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':390"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030361"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635658 {#1561
date: 2023-10-18 15:27:38.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697634319 {#1525
date: 2023-10-18 15:05:19.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56739
}
]
-id: 6174
-titleTs: "'colorado':9 'court':10 'forc':2 'googl':1 'histori':7 'reveal':4 'rule':11 'search':6 'user':5"
-bodyTs: null
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697718064
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.nz/post/2456087"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697631664 {#1926
date: 2023-10-18 14:21:04.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
} |
|
Show voter details
|
5 |
DENIED
|
ROLE_USER
|
null |
|
Show voter details
|
6 |
DENIED
|
moderate
|
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1732 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Image {#2030 …}
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2061 …}
+slug: "Google-forced-to-reveal-users-search-histories-in-Colorado-court"
+title: "Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling"
+url: "https://www.techspot.com/news/100529-google-forced-reveal-users-search-queries-colorado-court.html"
+body: null
+type: "link"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 97
+favouriteCount: 337
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1698232365 {#1692
date: 2023-10-25 13:12:45.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2075 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2037 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2035 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2140 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2093 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2351 …}
+children: [
1 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620}
0 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: """
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.\n
\n
Edit:\n
\n
> The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence \n
> obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be suppressed in \n
> circumstances where the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively \n
> reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, even \n
> if that warrant was later determined to be invalid.” Gutierrez, 222 P.3d at 941; see \n
> also Leftwich, 869 P.2d at 1272 (holding that Colorado’s good-faith exception, \n
> 35 \n
> codified in section 16-3-308, C.R.S. (2023), is “substantially similar” to the Supreme \n
> Court’s rule). The exception exists because there is little chance suppression will \n
> deter police misconduct in cases where the police didn’t know their conduct was \n
> illegal in the first place. Leon, 468 U.S. at 918–19. In such cases, “the social costs of \n
> suppression would outweigh any possible deterrent effect.\n
\n
> But the good-faith analysis in Gutierrez is distinguishable. True, we held \n
> there that the good-faith exception did not apply, but we had already recognized \n
> that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial records \n
> when Gutierrez was decided. Id. at 933 (citing numerous cases and statutes \n
> establishing that an individual’s financial records are protected under Colorado \n
> law). So, the police were on notice that a nexus was required between a crime and \n
> Gutierrez’s individual tax records. See id.\n
\n
> 38 \n
> ¶70 By contrast, until today, no court had established that individuals have a \n
> constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history. Cf. \n
> Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (holding that, under \n
> the third-party doctrine, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of \n
> privacy in his search history). In the absence of precedent explicitly establishing \n
> that an individual’s Google search history is constitutionally protected, DPD had \n
> no reason to know that it might have needed to demonstrate a connection between \n
> the alleged crime and Seymour’s individual Google account.\n
\n
In essence, the court is saying that this is the one and only time this will be allowed in Colorado.\n
\n
[https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf)
"""
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 8
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697652838 {#1666
date: 2023-10-18 20:13:58.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1567 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1559 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1564 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1563 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1565 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1558 …}
-id: 56739
-bodyTs: "'-3':123 '-308':124 '/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':392 '1272':109 '16':122 '19':170 '2023':126,305 '222':99 '294':298 '35':118 '38':271 '468':166 '509':300 '522':301 '70':272 '869':106 '918':169 '933':231 '941':102 'a.3d':299 'absenc':330 'account':369 'achiev':38 'act':73 'alleg':362 'allow':387 'alreadi':211 'also':104 'amend':59 'analysi':190 'appli':207 'bad':14 'c.r.s':125 'case':26,150,173,234 'cf':294 'chanc':143 'circumst':65 'cite':232 'codifi':119 'colorado':112,247,389 'commonwealth':295 'conduct':158 'conflict':3 'connect':359 'constitut':285,343 'contrast':274 'cost':176 'court':133,278,373 'crime':262,363 'ct':304 'decid':228 'defend':315 'definit':31 'demonstr':357 'design':19 'detach':84 'deter':146 'determin':94 'deterr':183 'didn':154 'distinguish':194 'doctrin':313 'dpd':345 'dragonet':12 'edit':40 'effect':184 'essenc':371 'establish':237,280,334 'even':88 'evid':52,68 'except':45,117,137,204 'exclusionari':48 'exist':138 'expect':218,321 'explicit':333 'faith':44,116,189,203 'fals':22 'feel':7 'financi':223,242 'first':163 'fourth':58 'good':43,115,188,202 'good-faith':42,114,187,201 'googl':291,339,368 'gutierrez':98,192,226,264 'held':197 'histori':293,327,341 'hold':110,306 'howev':27 'id':229,270 'illeg':160 'individu':214,240,266,282,337,367 'inform':11 'interest':288 'invalid':97 'issu':81 'know':156,350 'kurtz':297 'later':93 'law':248 'leftwich':105 'leon':165 'littl':142 'magistr':87 'might':353 'misconduct':148 'need':355 'neutral':86 'nexus':257 'notic':254 'numer':233 'object':75 'obtain':53,70 'obvious':10 'offic':72 'one':380 'otherwis':39 'outweigh':180 'p.2d':107 'p.3d':100 'pa':302 'parti':312 'place':164 'polic':147,153,251 'posit':23,32 'possibl':182 'preced':332 'privaci':220,287,323 'produc':21,29 'protect':245,286,344 'provid':50 're':17 'reason':76,217,320,348 'recogn':212 'record':224,243,268 'relianc':77 'requir':259 'rule':49,135 'say':375 'search':292,326,340 'section':121 'see':103,269 'seymour':365 'similar':129 'social':175 'specif':18 'statut':236 'substanti':128 'super':303 'suppress':63,144,178 'suprem':132 'tax':267 'third':311 'third-parti':310 'time':383 'today':276 'true':195 'u.s':167 'v':296 'violat':55 'warrant':80,91 'would':179 'wouldn':34 'www.courts.state.co.us':391 'www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':390"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030361"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635658 {#1561
date: 2023-10-18 15:27:38.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697634319 {#1525
date: 2023-10-18 15:05:19.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56739
}
]
-id: 6174
-titleTs: "'colorado':9 'court':10 'forc':2 'googl':1 'histori':7 'reveal':4 'rule':11 'search':6 'user':5"
-bodyTs: null
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697718064
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.nz/post/2456087"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697631664 {#1926
date: 2023-10-18 14:21:04.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1736 …}
+root: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1728 …}
+body: "Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 6
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697635893 {#1557
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
"@smeg@feddit.uk"
"@yeather@lemmy.ca"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1721 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1723 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1731 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1597 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1618 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1626 …}
-id: 56803
-bodyTs: "'act':32 'actual':2 'colorado':15 'court':4 'decis':5 'didn':25 'evid':19 'faith':35 'futur':9 'good':34 'howev':24 'keyword':11 'one':23 'opposit':1 'polic':31 'preced':28 'revers':10 'say':6 'search':12 'thrown':20 'warrant':13"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030779"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635959 {#1555
date: 2023-10-18 15:32:39.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635893 {#1621
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56803
} |
|
Show voter details
|
7 |
DENIED
|
edit
|
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1732 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Image {#2030 …}
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2061 …}
+slug: "Google-forced-to-reveal-users-search-histories-in-Colorado-court"
+title: "Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling"
+url: "https://www.techspot.com/news/100529-google-forced-reveal-users-search-queries-colorado-court.html"
+body: null
+type: "link"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 97
+favouriteCount: 337
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1698232365 {#1692
date: 2023-10-25 13:12:45.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2075 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2037 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2035 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2140 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2093 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2351 …}
+children: [
1 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620}
0 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: """
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.\n
\n
Edit:\n
\n
> The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence \n
> obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be suppressed in \n
> circumstances where the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively \n
> reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, even \n
> if that warrant was later determined to be invalid.” Gutierrez, 222 P.3d at 941; see \n
> also Leftwich, 869 P.2d at 1272 (holding that Colorado’s good-faith exception, \n
> 35 \n
> codified in section 16-3-308, C.R.S. (2023), is “substantially similar” to the Supreme \n
> Court’s rule). The exception exists because there is little chance suppression will \n
> deter police misconduct in cases where the police didn’t know their conduct was \n
> illegal in the first place. Leon, 468 U.S. at 918–19. In such cases, “the social costs of \n
> suppression would outweigh any possible deterrent effect.\n
\n
> But the good-faith analysis in Gutierrez is distinguishable. True, we held \n
> there that the good-faith exception did not apply, but we had already recognized \n
> that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial records \n
> when Gutierrez was decided. Id. at 933 (citing numerous cases and statutes \n
> establishing that an individual’s financial records are protected under Colorado \n
> law). So, the police were on notice that a nexus was required between a crime and \n
> Gutierrez’s individual tax records. See id.\n
\n
> 38 \n
> ¶70 By contrast, until today, no court had established that individuals have a \n
> constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history. Cf. \n
> Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (holding that, under \n
> the third-party doctrine, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of \n
> privacy in his search history). In the absence of precedent explicitly establishing \n
> that an individual’s Google search history is constitutionally protected, DPD had \n
> no reason to know that it might have needed to demonstrate a connection between \n
> the alleged crime and Seymour’s individual Google account.\n
\n
In essence, the court is saying that this is the one and only time this will be allowed in Colorado.\n
\n
[https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf)
"""
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 8
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697652838 {#1666
date: 2023-10-18 20:13:58.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1567 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1559 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1564 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1563 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1565 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1558 …}
-id: 56739
-bodyTs: "'-3':123 '-308':124 '/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':392 '1272':109 '16':122 '19':170 '2023':126,305 '222':99 '294':298 '35':118 '38':271 '468':166 '509':300 '522':301 '70':272 '869':106 '918':169 '933':231 '941':102 'a.3d':299 'absenc':330 'account':369 'achiev':38 'act':73 'alleg':362 'allow':387 'alreadi':211 'also':104 'amend':59 'analysi':190 'appli':207 'bad':14 'c.r.s':125 'case':26,150,173,234 'cf':294 'chanc':143 'circumst':65 'cite':232 'codifi':119 'colorado':112,247,389 'commonwealth':295 'conduct':158 'conflict':3 'connect':359 'constitut':285,343 'contrast':274 'cost':176 'court':133,278,373 'crime':262,363 'ct':304 'decid':228 'defend':315 'definit':31 'demonstr':357 'design':19 'detach':84 'deter':146 'determin':94 'deterr':183 'didn':154 'distinguish':194 'doctrin':313 'dpd':345 'dragonet':12 'edit':40 'effect':184 'essenc':371 'establish':237,280,334 'even':88 'evid':52,68 'except':45,117,137,204 'exclusionari':48 'exist':138 'expect':218,321 'explicit':333 'faith':44,116,189,203 'fals':22 'feel':7 'financi':223,242 'first':163 'fourth':58 'good':43,115,188,202 'good-faith':42,114,187,201 'googl':291,339,368 'gutierrez':98,192,226,264 'held':197 'histori':293,327,341 'hold':110,306 'howev':27 'id':229,270 'illeg':160 'individu':214,240,266,282,337,367 'inform':11 'interest':288 'invalid':97 'issu':81 'know':156,350 'kurtz':297 'later':93 'law':248 'leftwich':105 'leon':165 'littl':142 'magistr':87 'might':353 'misconduct':148 'need':355 'neutral':86 'nexus':257 'notic':254 'numer':233 'object':75 'obtain':53,70 'obvious':10 'offic':72 'one':380 'otherwis':39 'outweigh':180 'p.2d':107 'p.3d':100 'pa':302 'parti':312 'place':164 'polic':147,153,251 'posit':23,32 'possibl':182 'preced':332 'privaci':220,287,323 'produc':21,29 'protect':245,286,344 'provid':50 're':17 'reason':76,217,320,348 'recogn':212 'record':224,243,268 'relianc':77 'requir':259 'rule':49,135 'say':375 'search':292,326,340 'section':121 'see':103,269 'seymour':365 'similar':129 'social':175 'specif':18 'statut':236 'substanti':128 'super':303 'suppress':63,144,178 'suprem':132 'tax':267 'third':311 'third-parti':310 'time':383 'today':276 'true':195 'u.s':167 'v':296 'violat':55 'warrant':80,91 'would':179 'wouldn':34 'www.courts.state.co.us':391 'www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':390"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030361"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635658 {#1561
date: 2023-10-18 15:27:38.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697634319 {#1525
date: 2023-10-18 15:05:19.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56739
}
]
-id: 6174
-titleTs: "'colorado':9 'court':10 'forc':2 'googl':1 'histori':7 'reveal':4 'rule':11 'search':6 'user':5"
-bodyTs: null
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697718064
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.nz/post/2456087"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697631664 {#1926
date: 2023-10-18 14:21:04.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1736 …}
+root: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1728 …}
+body: "Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 6
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697635893 {#1557
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
"@smeg@feddit.uk"
"@yeather@lemmy.ca"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1721 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1723 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1731 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1597 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1618 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1626 …}
-id: 56803
-bodyTs: "'act':32 'actual':2 'colorado':15 'court':4 'decis':5 'didn':25 'evid':19 'faith':35 'futur':9 'good':34 'howev':24 'keyword':11 'one':23 'opposit':1 'polic':31 'preced':28 'revers':10 'say':6 'search':12 'thrown':20 'warrant':13"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030779"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635959 {#1555
date: 2023-10-18 15:32:39.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635893 {#1621
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56803
} |
|
Show voter details
|
8 |
DENIED
|
moderate
|
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1732 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Image {#2030 …}
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2061 …}
+slug: "Google-forced-to-reveal-users-search-histories-in-Colorado-court"
+title: "Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling"
+url: "https://www.techspot.com/news/100529-google-forced-reveal-users-search-queries-colorado-court.html"
+body: null
+type: "link"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 97
+favouriteCount: 337
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1698232365 {#1692
date: 2023-10-25 13:12:45.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2075 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2037 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2035 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2140 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2093 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2351 …}
+children: [
1 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620}
0 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: """
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.\n
\n
Edit:\n
\n
> The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence \n
> obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be suppressed in \n
> circumstances where the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively \n
> reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, even \n
> if that warrant was later determined to be invalid.” Gutierrez, 222 P.3d at 941; see \n
> also Leftwich, 869 P.2d at 1272 (holding that Colorado’s good-faith exception, \n
> 35 \n
> codified in section 16-3-308, C.R.S. (2023), is “substantially similar” to the Supreme \n
> Court’s rule). The exception exists because there is little chance suppression will \n
> deter police misconduct in cases where the police didn’t know their conduct was \n
> illegal in the first place. Leon, 468 U.S. at 918–19. In such cases, “the social costs of \n
> suppression would outweigh any possible deterrent effect.\n
\n
> But the good-faith analysis in Gutierrez is distinguishable. True, we held \n
> there that the good-faith exception did not apply, but we had already recognized \n
> that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial records \n
> when Gutierrez was decided. Id. at 933 (citing numerous cases and statutes \n
> establishing that an individual’s financial records are protected under Colorado \n
> law). So, the police were on notice that a nexus was required between a crime and \n
> Gutierrez’s individual tax records. See id.\n
\n
> 38 \n
> ¶70 By contrast, until today, no court had established that individuals have a \n
> constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history. Cf. \n
> Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (holding that, under \n
> the third-party doctrine, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of \n
> privacy in his search history). In the absence of precedent explicitly establishing \n
> that an individual’s Google search history is constitutionally protected, DPD had \n
> no reason to know that it might have needed to demonstrate a connection between \n
> the alleged crime and Seymour’s individual Google account.\n
\n
In essence, the court is saying that this is the one and only time this will be allowed in Colorado.\n
\n
[https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf)
"""
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 8
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697652838 {#1666
date: 2023-10-18 20:13:58.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1567 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1559 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1564 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1563 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1565 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1558 …}
-id: 56739
-bodyTs: "'-3':123 '-308':124 '/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':392 '1272':109 '16':122 '19':170 '2023':126,305 '222':99 '294':298 '35':118 '38':271 '468':166 '509':300 '522':301 '70':272 '869':106 '918':169 '933':231 '941':102 'a.3d':299 'absenc':330 'account':369 'achiev':38 'act':73 'alleg':362 'allow':387 'alreadi':211 'also':104 'amend':59 'analysi':190 'appli':207 'bad':14 'c.r.s':125 'case':26,150,173,234 'cf':294 'chanc':143 'circumst':65 'cite':232 'codifi':119 'colorado':112,247,389 'commonwealth':295 'conduct':158 'conflict':3 'connect':359 'constitut':285,343 'contrast':274 'cost':176 'court':133,278,373 'crime':262,363 'ct':304 'decid':228 'defend':315 'definit':31 'demonstr':357 'design':19 'detach':84 'deter':146 'determin':94 'deterr':183 'didn':154 'distinguish':194 'doctrin':313 'dpd':345 'dragonet':12 'edit':40 'effect':184 'essenc':371 'establish':237,280,334 'even':88 'evid':52,68 'except':45,117,137,204 'exclusionari':48 'exist':138 'expect':218,321 'explicit':333 'faith':44,116,189,203 'fals':22 'feel':7 'financi':223,242 'first':163 'fourth':58 'good':43,115,188,202 'good-faith':42,114,187,201 'googl':291,339,368 'gutierrez':98,192,226,264 'held':197 'histori':293,327,341 'hold':110,306 'howev':27 'id':229,270 'illeg':160 'individu':214,240,266,282,337,367 'inform':11 'interest':288 'invalid':97 'issu':81 'know':156,350 'kurtz':297 'later':93 'law':248 'leftwich':105 'leon':165 'littl':142 'magistr':87 'might':353 'misconduct':148 'need':355 'neutral':86 'nexus':257 'notic':254 'numer':233 'object':75 'obtain':53,70 'obvious':10 'offic':72 'one':380 'otherwis':39 'outweigh':180 'p.2d':107 'p.3d':100 'pa':302 'parti':312 'place':164 'polic':147,153,251 'posit':23,32 'possibl':182 'preced':332 'privaci':220,287,323 'produc':21,29 'protect':245,286,344 'provid':50 're':17 'reason':76,217,320,348 'recogn':212 'record':224,243,268 'relianc':77 'requir':259 'rule':49,135 'say':375 'search':292,326,340 'section':121 'see':103,269 'seymour':365 'similar':129 'social':175 'specif':18 'statut':236 'substanti':128 'super':303 'suppress':63,144,178 'suprem':132 'tax':267 'third':311 'third-parti':310 'time':383 'today':276 'true':195 'u.s':167 'v':296 'violat':55 'warrant':80,91 'would':179 'wouldn':34 'www.courts.state.co.us':391 'www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':390"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030361"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635658 {#1561
date: 2023-10-18 15:27:38.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697634319 {#1525
date: 2023-10-18 15:05:19.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56739
}
]
-id: 6174
-titleTs: "'colorado':9 'court':10 'forc':2 'googl':1 'histori':7 'reveal':4 'rule':11 'search':6 'user':5"
-bodyTs: null
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697718064
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.nz/post/2456087"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697631664 {#1926
date: 2023-10-18 14:21:04.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1736 …}
+root: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1728 …}
+body: "Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 6
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697635893 {#1557
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
"@smeg@feddit.uk"
"@yeather@lemmy.ca"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1721 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1723 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1731 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1597 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1618 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1626 …}
-id: 56803
-bodyTs: "'act':32 'actual':2 'colorado':15 'court':4 'decis':5 'didn':25 'evid':19 'faith':35 'futur':9 'good':34 'howev':24 'keyword':11 'one':23 'opposit':1 'polic':31 'preced':28 'revers':10 'say':6 'search':12 'thrown':20 'warrant':13"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030779"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635959 {#1555
date: 2023-10-18 15:32:39.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635893 {#1621
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56803
} |
|
Show voter details
|
9 |
DENIED
|
ROLE_USER
|
null |
|
Show voter details
|
10 |
DENIED
|
moderate
|
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1732 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Image {#2030 …}
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2061 …}
+slug: "Google-forced-to-reveal-users-search-histories-in-Colorado-court"
+title: "Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling"
+url: "https://www.techspot.com/news/100529-google-forced-reveal-users-search-queries-colorado-court.html"
+body: null
+type: "link"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 97
+favouriteCount: 337
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1698232365 {#1692
date: 2023-10-25 13:12:45.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2075 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2037 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2035 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2140 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2093 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2351 …}
+children: [
1 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1736 …}
+root: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1728 …}
+body: "Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 6
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697635893 {#1557
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
"@smeg@feddit.uk"
"@yeather@lemmy.ca"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1721 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1723 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1731 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1597 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1618 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1626 …}
-id: 56803
-bodyTs: "'act':32 'actual':2 'colorado':15 'court':4 'decis':5 'didn':25 'evid':19 'faith':35 'futur':9 'good':34 'howev':24 'keyword':11 'one':23 'opposit':1 'polic':31 'preced':28 'revers':10 'say':6 'search':12 'thrown':20 'warrant':13"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030779"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635959 {#1555
date: 2023-10-18 15:32:39.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635893 {#1621
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56803
}
0 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527}
]
-id: 6174
-titleTs: "'colorado':9 'court':10 'forc':2 'googl':1 'histori':7 'reveal':4 'rule':11 'search':6 'user':5"
-bodyTs: null
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697718064
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.nz/post/2456087"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697631664 {#1926
date: 2023-10-18 14:21:04.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: """
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.\n
\n
Edit:\n
\n
> The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence \n
> obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be suppressed in \n
> circumstances where the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively \n
> reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, even \n
> if that warrant was later determined to be invalid.” Gutierrez, 222 P.3d at 941; see \n
> also Leftwich, 869 P.2d at 1272 (holding that Colorado’s good-faith exception, \n
> 35 \n
> codified in section 16-3-308, C.R.S. (2023), is “substantially similar” to the Supreme \n
> Court’s rule). The exception exists because there is little chance suppression will \n
> deter police misconduct in cases where the police didn’t know their conduct was \n
> illegal in the first place. Leon, 468 U.S. at 918–19. In such cases, “the social costs of \n
> suppression would outweigh any possible deterrent effect.\n
\n
> But the good-faith analysis in Gutierrez is distinguishable. True, we held \n
> there that the good-faith exception did not apply, but we had already recognized \n
> that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial records \n
> when Gutierrez was decided. Id. at 933 (citing numerous cases and statutes \n
> establishing that an individual’s financial records are protected under Colorado \n
> law). So, the police were on notice that a nexus was required between a crime and \n
> Gutierrez’s individual tax records. See id.\n
\n
> 38 \n
> ¶70 By contrast, until today, no court had established that individuals have a \n
> constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history. Cf. \n
> Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (holding that, under \n
> the third-party doctrine, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of \n
> privacy in his search history). In the absence of precedent explicitly establishing \n
> that an individual’s Google search history is constitutionally protected, DPD had \n
> no reason to know that it might have needed to demonstrate a connection between \n
> the alleged crime and Seymour’s individual Google account.\n
\n
In essence, the court is saying that this is the one and only time this will be allowed in Colorado.\n
\n
[https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf)
"""
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 8
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697652838 {#1666
date: 2023-10-18 20:13:58.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1567 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1559 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1564 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1563 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1565 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1558 …}
-id: 56739
-bodyTs: "'-3':123 '-308':124 '/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':392 '1272':109 '16':122 '19':170 '2023':126,305 '222':99 '294':298 '35':118 '38':271 '468':166 '509':300 '522':301 '70':272 '869':106 '918':169 '933':231 '941':102 'a.3d':299 'absenc':330 'account':369 'achiev':38 'act':73 'alleg':362 'allow':387 'alreadi':211 'also':104 'amend':59 'analysi':190 'appli':207 'bad':14 'c.r.s':125 'case':26,150,173,234 'cf':294 'chanc':143 'circumst':65 'cite':232 'codifi':119 'colorado':112,247,389 'commonwealth':295 'conduct':158 'conflict':3 'connect':359 'constitut':285,343 'contrast':274 'cost':176 'court':133,278,373 'crime':262,363 'ct':304 'decid':228 'defend':315 'definit':31 'demonstr':357 'design':19 'detach':84 'deter':146 'determin':94 'deterr':183 'didn':154 'distinguish':194 'doctrin':313 'dpd':345 'dragonet':12 'edit':40 'effect':184 'essenc':371 'establish':237,280,334 'even':88 'evid':52,68 'except':45,117,137,204 'exclusionari':48 'exist':138 'expect':218,321 'explicit':333 'faith':44,116,189,203 'fals':22 'feel':7 'financi':223,242 'first':163 'fourth':58 'good':43,115,188,202 'good-faith':42,114,187,201 'googl':291,339,368 'gutierrez':98,192,226,264 'held':197 'histori':293,327,341 'hold':110,306 'howev':27 'id':229,270 'illeg':160 'individu':214,240,266,282,337,367 'inform':11 'interest':288 'invalid':97 'issu':81 'know':156,350 'kurtz':297 'later':93 'law':248 'leftwich':105 'leon':165 'littl':142 'magistr':87 'might':353 'misconduct':148 'need':355 'neutral':86 'nexus':257 'notic':254 'numer':233 'object':75 'obtain':53,70 'obvious':10 'offic':72 'one':380 'otherwis':39 'outweigh':180 'p.2d':107 'p.3d':100 'pa':302 'parti':312 'place':164 'polic':147,153,251 'posit':23,32 'possibl':182 'preced':332 'privaci':220,287,323 'produc':21,29 'protect':245,286,344 'provid':50 're':17 'reason':76,217,320,348 'recogn':212 'record':224,243,268 'relianc':77 'requir':259 'rule':49,135 'say':375 'search':292,326,340 'section':121 'see':103,269 'seymour':365 'similar':129 'social':175 'specif':18 'statut':236 'substanti':128 'super':303 'suppress':63,144,178 'suprem':132 'tax':267 'third':311 'third-parti':310 'time':383 'today':276 'true':195 'u.s':167 'v':296 'violat':55 'warrant':80,91 'would':179 'wouldn':34 'www.courts.state.co.us':391 'www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':390"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030361"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635658 {#1561
date: 2023-10-18 15:27:38.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697634319 {#1525
date: 2023-10-18 15:05:19.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56739
} |
|
Show voter details
|
11 |
DENIED
|
edit
|
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1732 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Image {#2030 …}
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2061 …}
+slug: "Google-forced-to-reveal-users-search-histories-in-Colorado-court"
+title: "Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling"
+url: "https://www.techspot.com/news/100529-google-forced-reveal-users-search-queries-colorado-court.html"
+body: null
+type: "link"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 97
+favouriteCount: 337
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1698232365 {#1692
date: 2023-10-25 13:12:45.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2075 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2037 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2035 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2140 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2093 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2351 …}
+children: [
1 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1736 …}
+root: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1728 …}
+body: "Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 6
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697635893 {#1557
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
"@smeg@feddit.uk"
"@yeather@lemmy.ca"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1721 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1723 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1731 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1597 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1618 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1626 …}
-id: 56803
-bodyTs: "'act':32 'actual':2 'colorado':15 'court':4 'decis':5 'didn':25 'evid':19 'faith':35 'futur':9 'good':34 'howev':24 'keyword':11 'one':23 'opposit':1 'polic':31 'preced':28 'revers':10 'say':6 'search':12 'thrown':20 'warrant':13"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030779"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635959 {#1555
date: 2023-10-18 15:32:39.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635893 {#1621
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56803
}
0 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527}
]
-id: 6174
-titleTs: "'colorado':9 'court':10 'forc':2 'googl':1 'histori':7 'reveal':4 'rule':11 'search':6 'user':5"
-bodyTs: null
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697718064
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.nz/post/2456087"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697631664 {#1926
date: 2023-10-18 14:21:04.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: """
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.\n
\n
Edit:\n
\n
> The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence \n
> obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be suppressed in \n
> circumstances where the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively \n
> reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, even \n
> if that warrant was later determined to be invalid.” Gutierrez, 222 P.3d at 941; see \n
> also Leftwich, 869 P.2d at 1272 (holding that Colorado’s good-faith exception, \n
> 35 \n
> codified in section 16-3-308, C.R.S. (2023), is “substantially similar” to the Supreme \n
> Court’s rule). The exception exists because there is little chance suppression will \n
> deter police misconduct in cases where the police didn’t know their conduct was \n
> illegal in the first place. Leon, 468 U.S. at 918–19. In such cases, “the social costs of \n
> suppression would outweigh any possible deterrent effect.\n
\n
> But the good-faith analysis in Gutierrez is distinguishable. True, we held \n
> there that the good-faith exception did not apply, but we had already recognized \n
> that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial records \n
> when Gutierrez was decided. Id. at 933 (citing numerous cases and statutes \n
> establishing that an individual’s financial records are protected under Colorado \n
> law). So, the police were on notice that a nexus was required between a crime and \n
> Gutierrez’s individual tax records. See id.\n
\n
> 38 \n
> ¶70 By contrast, until today, no court had established that individuals have a \n
> constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history. Cf. \n
> Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (holding that, under \n
> the third-party doctrine, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of \n
> privacy in his search history). In the absence of precedent explicitly establishing \n
> that an individual’s Google search history is constitutionally protected, DPD had \n
> no reason to know that it might have needed to demonstrate a connection between \n
> the alleged crime and Seymour’s individual Google account.\n
\n
In essence, the court is saying that this is the one and only time this will be allowed in Colorado.\n
\n
[https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf)
"""
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 8
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697652838 {#1666
date: 2023-10-18 20:13:58.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1567 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1559 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1564 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1563 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1565 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1558 …}
-id: 56739
-bodyTs: "'-3':123 '-308':124 '/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':392 '1272':109 '16':122 '19':170 '2023':126,305 '222':99 '294':298 '35':118 '38':271 '468':166 '509':300 '522':301 '70':272 '869':106 '918':169 '933':231 '941':102 'a.3d':299 'absenc':330 'account':369 'achiev':38 'act':73 'alleg':362 'allow':387 'alreadi':211 'also':104 'amend':59 'analysi':190 'appli':207 'bad':14 'c.r.s':125 'case':26,150,173,234 'cf':294 'chanc':143 'circumst':65 'cite':232 'codifi':119 'colorado':112,247,389 'commonwealth':295 'conduct':158 'conflict':3 'connect':359 'constitut':285,343 'contrast':274 'cost':176 'court':133,278,373 'crime':262,363 'ct':304 'decid':228 'defend':315 'definit':31 'demonstr':357 'design':19 'detach':84 'deter':146 'determin':94 'deterr':183 'didn':154 'distinguish':194 'doctrin':313 'dpd':345 'dragonet':12 'edit':40 'effect':184 'essenc':371 'establish':237,280,334 'even':88 'evid':52,68 'except':45,117,137,204 'exclusionari':48 'exist':138 'expect':218,321 'explicit':333 'faith':44,116,189,203 'fals':22 'feel':7 'financi':223,242 'first':163 'fourth':58 'good':43,115,188,202 'good-faith':42,114,187,201 'googl':291,339,368 'gutierrez':98,192,226,264 'held':197 'histori':293,327,341 'hold':110,306 'howev':27 'id':229,270 'illeg':160 'individu':214,240,266,282,337,367 'inform':11 'interest':288 'invalid':97 'issu':81 'know':156,350 'kurtz':297 'later':93 'law':248 'leftwich':105 'leon':165 'littl':142 'magistr':87 'might':353 'misconduct':148 'need':355 'neutral':86 'nexus':257 'notic':254 'numer':233 'object':75 'obtain':53,70 'obvious':10 'offic':72 'one':380 'otherwis':39 'outweigh':180 'p.2d':107 'p.3d':100 'pa':302 'parti':312 'place':164 'polic':147,153,251 'posit':23,32 'possibl':182 'preced':332 'privaci':220,287,323 'produc':21,29 'protect':245,286,344 'provid':50 're':17 'reason':76,217,320,348 'recogn':212 'record':224,243,268 'relianc':77 'requir':259 'rule':49,135 'say':375 'search':292,326,340 'section':121 'see':103,269 'seymour':365 'similar':129 'social':175 'specif':18 'statut':236 'substanti':128 'super':303 'suppress':63,144,178 'suprem':132 'tax':267 'third':311 'third-parti':310 'time':383 'today':276 'true':195 'u.s':167 'v':296 'violat':55 'warrant':80,91 'would':179 'wouldn':34 'www.courts.state.co.us':391 'www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':390"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030361"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635658 {#1561
date: 2023-10-18 15:27:38.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697634319 {#1525
date: 2023-10-18 15:05:19.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56739
} |
|
Show voter details
|
12 |
DENIED
|
moderate
|
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1732 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Image {#2030 …}
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2061 …}
+slug: "Google-forced-to-reveal-users-search-histories-in-Colorado-court"
+title: "Google forced to reveal users' search histories in Colorado court ruling"
+url: "https://www.techspot.com/news/100529-google-forced-reveal-users-search-queries-colorado-court.html"
+body: null
+type: "link"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 97
+favouriteCount: 337
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1698232365 {#1692
date: 2023-10-25 13:12:45.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2075 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2037 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2035 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2140 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2093 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2351 …}
+children: [
1 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1620
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1568 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1736 …}
+root: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\EntryComment {#1728 …}
+body: "Opposite actually. The court decision says that all future reverse keyword search warrants in Colorado will have their evidence thrown out. This one, however, didn't have precedent so the police acted in good faith."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 6
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697635893 {#1557
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
"@smeg@feddit.uk"
"@yeather@lemmy.ca"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1721 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1723 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1731 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1597 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1618 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1626 …}
-id: 56803
-bodyTs: "'act':32 'actual':2 'colorado':15 'court':4 'decis':5 'didn':25 'evid':19 'faith':35 'futur':9 'good':34 'howev':24 'keyword':11 'one':23 'opposit':1 'polic':31 'preced':28 'revers':10 'say':6 'search':12 'thrown':20 'warrant':13"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030779"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635959 {#1555
date: 2023-10-18 15:32:39.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635893 {#1621
date: 2023-10-18 15:31:33.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56803
}
0 => App\Entity\EntryComment {#1527}
]
-id: 6174
-titleTs: "'colorado':9 'court':10 'forc':2 'googl':1 'histori':7 'reveal':4 'rule':11 'search':6 'user':5"
-bodyTs: null
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697718064
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.nz/post/2456087"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697631664 {#1926
date: 2023-10-18 14:21:04.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1526 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: """
I am conflicted on how I feel about that. Obviously information dragonets are bad because they're specifically designed to produce false positives. In this case, however, they produced a definite positive that wouldn't have been achieved otherwise.\n
\n
Edit:\n
\n
> The good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule provides that “evidence \n
> obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be suppressed in \n
> circumstances where the evidence was obtained by officers acting in objectively \n
> reasonable reliance on a warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate, even \n
> if that warrant was later determined to be invalid.” Gutierrez, 222 P.3d at 941; see \n
> also Leftwich, 869 P.2d at 1272 (holding that Colorado’s good-faith exception, \n
> 35 \n
> codified in section 16-3-308, C.R.S. (2023), is “substantially similar” to the Supreme \n
> Court’s rule). The exception exists because there is little chance suppression will \n
> deter police misconduct in cases where the police didn’t know their conduct was \n
> illegal in the first place. Leon, 468 U.S. at 918–19. In such cases, “the social costs of \n
> suppression would outweigh any possible deterrent effect.\n
\n
> But the good-faith analysis in Gutierrez is distinguishable. True, we held \n
> there that the good-faith exception did not apply, but we had already recognized \n
> that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their financial records \n
> when Gutierrez was decided. Id. at 933 (citing numerous cases and statutes \n
> establishing that an individual’s financial records are protected under Colorado \n
> law). So, the police were on notice that a nexus was required between a crime and \n
> Gutierrez’s individual tax records. See id.\n
\n
> 38 \n
> ¶70 By contrast, until today, no court had established that individuals have a \n
> constitutionally protected privacy interest in their Google search history. Cf. \n
> Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 294 A.3d 509, 522 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (holding that, under \n
> the third-party doctrine, the defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of \n
> privacy in his search history). In the absence of precedent explicitly establishing \n
> that an individual’s Google search history is constitutionally protected, DPD had \n
> no reason to know that it might have needed to demonstrate a connection between \n
> the alleged crime and Seymour’s individual Google account.\n
\n
In essence, the court is saying that this is the one and only time this will be allowed in Colorado.\n
\n
[https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA12.pdf)
"""
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 8
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697652838 {#1666
date: 2023-10-18 20:13:58.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@throws_lemy@lemmy.nz"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1567 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1559 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1564 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1563 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1565 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1558 …}
-id: 56739
-bodyTs: "'-3':123 '-308':124 '/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':392 '1272':109 '16':122 '19':170 '2023':126,305 '222':99 '294':298 '35':118 '38':271 '468':166 '509':300 '522':301 '70':272 '869':106 '918':169 '933':231 '941':102 'a.3d':299 'absenc':330 'account':369 'achiev':38 'act':73 'alleg':362 'allow':387 'alreadi':211 'also':104 'amend':59 'analysi':190 'appli':207 'bad':14 'c.r.s':125 'case':26,150,173,234 'cf':294 'chanc':143 'circumst':65 'cite':232 'codifi':119 'colorado':112,247,389 'commonwealth':295 'conduct':158 'conflict':3 'connect':359 'constitut':285,343 'contrast':274 'cost':176 'court':133,278,373 'crime':262,363 'ct':304 'decid':228 'defend':315 'definit':31 'demonstr':357 'design':19 'detach':84 'deter':146 'determin':94 'deterr':183 'didn':154 'distinguish':194 'doctrin':313 'dpd':345 'dragonet':12 'edit':40 'effect':184 'essenc':371 'establish':237,280,334 'even':88 'evid':52,68 'except':45,117,137,204 'exclusionari':48 'exist':138 'expect':218,321 'explicit':333 'faith':44,116,189,203 'fals':22 'feel':7 'financi':223,242 'first':163 'fourth':58 'good':43,115,188,202 'good-faith':42,114,187,201 'googl':291,339,368 'gutierrez':98,192,226,264 'held':197 'histori':293,327,341 'hold':110,306 'howev':27 'id':229,270 'illeg':160 'individu':214,240,266,282,337,367 'inform':11 'interest':288 'invalid':97 'issu':81 'know':156,350 'kurtz':297 'later':93 'law':248 'leftwich':105 'leon':165 'littl':142 'magistr':87 'might':353 'misconduct':148 'need':355 'neutral':86 'nexus':257 'notic':254 'numer':233 'object':75 'obtain':53,70 'obvious':10 'offic':72 'one':380 'otherwis':39 'outweigh':180 'p.2d':107 'p.3d':100 'pa':302 'parti':312 'place':164 'polic':147,153,251 'posit':23,32 'possibl':182 'preced':332 'privaci':220,287,323 'produc':21,29 'protect':245,286,344 'provid':50 're':17 'reason':76,217,320,348 'recogn':212 'record':224,243,268 'relianc':77 'requir':259 'rule':49,135 'say':375 'search':292,326,340 'section':121 'see':103,269 'seymour':365 'similar':129 'social':175 'specif':18 'statut':236 'substanti':128 'super':303 'suppress':63,144,178 'suprem':132 'tax':267 'third':311 'third-parti':310 'time':383 'today':276 'true':195 'u.s':167 'v':296 'violat':55 'warrant':80,91 'would':179 'wouldn':34 'www.courts.state.co.us':391 'www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/court_probation/supreme_court/opinions/2023/23sa12.pdf)':390"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/privacyguides@lemmy.one/t/549368/-/comment/3030361"
+editedAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697635658 {#1561
date: 2023-10-18 15:27:38.0 +02:00
}
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697634319 {#1525
date: 2023-10-18 15:05:19.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56739
} |
|
Show voter details
|
13 |
DENIED
|
ROLE_USER
|
null |
|
Show voter details
|
14 |
DENIED
|
moderate
|
Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1578
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1720 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2332 …}
+slug: "What-can-we-do-as-lemmy-users-to-fight-fake"
+title: "What can we do, as lemmy users, to fight fake news being pushed in the platform?"
+url: null
+body: """
I see a lot of posts lately, mainly in ‘world news’ communities, that when I investigate their source, I cannot come to any other conclostion that purposefully spreading of fake news and propaganda on lemmy.\n
\n
I love this platform and want to see it thrive, but the fact that these kind of posts can so easily populate my feed is disturbing.
"""
+type: "article"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 86
+favouriteCount: 315
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1697724189 {#2330
date: 2023-10-19 16:03:09.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2344 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2326 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2325 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2329 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2323 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2300 …}
+children: [
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1595
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1578 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: "That's a moderation problem. We don't have a highly moderated news community that's popular yet."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 5
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697615162 {#1430
date: 2023-10-18 09:46:02.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@YourEmptyWallet@lemmy.world"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1574 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1588 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1584 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1580 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1585 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1654 …}
-id: 56088
-bodyTs: "'communiti':14 'high':11 'moder':4,12 'news':13 'popular':17 'problem':5 'yet':18"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.world/t/548792/-/comment/3025974"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697611569 {#1429
date: 2023-10-18 08:46:09.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56088
}
]
-id: 6140
-titleTs: "'fake':10 'fight':9 'lemmi':6 'news':11 'platform':16 'push':13 'user':7"
-bodyTs: "'cannot':20 'come':21 'communiti':12 'conclost':25 'disturb':61 'easili':56 'fact':48 'fake':30 'feed':59 'investig':16 'kind':51 'late':7 'lemmi':35 'lot':4 'love':37 'main':8 'news':11,31 'platform':39 'popul':57 'post':6,53 'propaganda':33 'purpos':27 'see':2,43 'sourc':18 'spread':28 'thrive':45 'want':41 'world':10"
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697694394
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.world/post/6962633"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697607994 {#2387
date: 2023-10-18 07:46:34.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
} |
|
Show voter details
|
15 |
DENIED
|
edit
|
Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1578
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1720 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2332 …}
+slug: "What-can-we-do-as-lemmy-users-to-fight-fake"
+title: "What can we do, as lemmy users, to fight fake news being pushed in the platform?"
+url: null
+body: """
I see a lot of posts lately, mainly in ‘world news’ communities, that when I investigate their source, I cannot come to any other conclostion that purposefully spreading of fake news and propaganda on lemmy.\n
\n
I love this platform and want to see it thrive, but the fact that these kind of posts can so easily populate my feed is disturbing.
"""
+type: "article"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 86
+favouriteCount: 315
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1697724189 {#2330
date: 2023-10-19 16:03:09.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2344 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2326 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2325 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2329 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2323 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2300 …}
+children: [
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1595
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1578 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: "That's a moderation problem. We don't have a highly moderated news community that's popular yet."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 5
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697615162 {#1430
date: 2023-10-18 09:46:02.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@YourEmptyWallet@lemmy.world"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1574 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1588 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1584 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1580 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1585 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1654 …}
-id: 56088
-bodyTs: "'communiti':14 'high':11 'moder':4,12 'news':13 'popular':17 'problem':5 'yet':18"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.world/t/548792/-/comment/3025974"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697611569 {#1429
date: 2023-10-18 08:46:09.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56088
}
]
-id: 6140
-titleTs: "'fake':10 'fight':9 'lemmi':6 'news':11 'platform':16 'push':13 'user':7"
-bodyTs: "'cannot':20 'come':21 'communiti':12 'conclost':25 'disturb':61 'easili':56 'fact':48 'fake':30 'feed':59 'investig':16 'kind':51 'late':7 'lemmi':35 'lot':4 'love':37 'main':8 'news':11,31 'platform':39 'popul':57 'post':6,53 'propaganda':33 'purpos':27 'see':2,43 'sourc':18 'spread':28 'thrive':45 'want':41 'world':10"
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697694394
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.world/post/6962633"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697607994 {#2387
date: 2023-10-18 07:46:34.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
} |
|
Show voter details
|
16 |
DENIED
|
moderate
|
Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1578
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1720 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2332 …}
+slug: "What-can-we-do-as-lemmy-users-to-fight-fake"
+title: "What can we do, as lemmy users, to fight fake news being pushed in the platform?"
+url: null
+body: """
I see a lot of posts lately, mainly in ‘world news’ communities, that when I investigate their source, I cannot come to any other conclostion that purposefully spreading of fake news and propaganda on lemmy.\n
\n
I love this platform and want to see it thrive, but the fact that these kind of posts can so easily populate my feed is disturbing.
"""
+type: "article"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 86
+favouriteCount: 315
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1697724189 {#2330
date: 2023-10-19 16:03:09.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2344 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2326 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2325 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2329 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2323 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2300 …}
+children: [
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1595
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1578 …2}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: "That's a moderation problem. We don't have a highly moderated news community that's popular yet."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 5
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697615162 {#1430
date: 2023-10-18 09:46:02.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@YourEmptyWallet@lemmy.world"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1574 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1588 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1584 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1580 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1585 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1654 …}
-id: 56088
-bodyTs: "'communiti':14 'high':11 'moder':4,12 'news':13 'popular':17 'problem':5 'yet':18"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.world/t/548792/-/comment/3025974"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697611569 {#1429
date: 2023-10-18 08:46:09.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56088
}
]
-id: 6140
-titleTs: "'fake':10 'fight':9 'lemmi':6 'news':11 'platform':16 'push':13 'user':7"
-bodyTs: "'cannot':20 'come':21 'communiti':12 'conclost':25 'disturb':61 'easili':56 'fact':48 'fake':30 'feed':59 'investig':16 'kind':51 'late':7 'lemmi':35 'lot':4 'love':37 'main':8 'news':11,31 'platform':39 'popul':57 'post':6,53 'propaganda':33 'purpos':27 'see':2,43 'sourc':18 'spread':28 'thrive':45 'want':41 'world':10"
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697694394
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.world/post/6962633"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697607994 {#2387
date: 2023-10-18 07:46:34.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
} |
|
Show voter details
|
17 |
DENIED
|
ROLE_USER
|
null |
|
Show voter details
|
18 |
DENIED
|
moderate
|
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1595
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1578
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1720 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2332 …}
+slug: "What-can-we-do-as-lemmy-users-to-fight-fake"
+title: "What can we do, as lemmy users, to fight fake news being pushed in the platform?"
+url: null
+body: """
I see a lot of posts lately, mainly in ‘world news’ communities, that when I investigate their source, I cannot come to any other conclostion that purposefully spreading of fake news and propaganda on lemmy.\n
\n
I love this platform and want to see it thrive, but the fact that these kind of posts can so easily populate my feed is disturbing.
"""
+type: "article"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 86
+favouriteCount: 315
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1697724189 {#2330
date: 2023-10-19 16:03:09.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2344 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2326 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2325 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2329 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2323 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2300 …}
+children: [
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1595}
]
-id: 6140
-titleTs: "'fake':10 'fight':9 'lemmi':6 'news':11 'platform':16 'push':13 'user':7"
-bodyTs: "'cannot':20 'come':21 'communiti':12 'conclost':25 'disturb':61 'easili':56 'fact':48 'fake':30 'feed':59 'investig':16 'kind':51 'late':7 'lemmi':35 'lot':4 'love':37 'main':8 'news':11,31 'platform':39 'popul':57 'post':6,53 'propaganda':33 'purpos':27 'see':2,43 'sourc':18 'spread':28 'thrive':45 'want':41 'world':10"
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697694394
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.world/post/6962633"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697607994 {#2387
date: 2023-10-18 07:46:34.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: "That's a moderation problem. We don't have a highly moderated news community that's popular yet."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 5
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697615162 {#1430
date: 2023-10-18 09:46:02.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@YourEmptyWallet@lemmy.world"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1574 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1588 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1584 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1580 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1585 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1654 …}
-id: 56088
-bodyTs: "'communiti':14 'high':11 'moder':4,12 'news':13 'popular':17 'problem':5 'yet':18"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.world/t/548792/-/comment/3025974"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697611569 {#1429
date: 2023-10-18 08:46:09.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56088
} |
|
Show voter details
|
19 |
DENIED
|
edit
|
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1595
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1578
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1720 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2332 …}
+slug: "What-can-we-do-as-lemmy-users-to-fight-fake"
+title: "What can we do, as lemmy users, to fight fake news being pushed in the platform?"
+url: null
+body: """
I see a lot of posts lately, mainly in ‘world news’ communities, that when I investigate their source, I cannot come to any other conclostion that purposefully spreading of fake news and propaganda on lemmy.\n
\n
I love this platform and want to see it thrive, but the fact that these kind of posts can so easily populate my feed is disturbing.
"""
+type: "article"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 86
+favouriteCount: 315
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1697724189 {#2330
date: 2023-10-19 16:03:09.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2344 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2326 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2325 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2329 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2323 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2300 …}
+children: [
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1595}
]
-id: 6140
-titleTs: "'fake':10 'fight':9 'lemmi':6 'news':11 'platform':16 'push':13 'user':7"
-bodyTs: "'cannot':20 'come':21 'communiti':12 'conclost':25 'disturb':61 'easili':56 'fact':48 'fake':30 'feed':59 'investig':16 'kind':51 'late':7 'lemmi':35 'lot':4 'love':37 'main':8 'news':11,31 'platform':39 'popul':57 'post':6,53 'propaganda':33 'purpos':27 'see':2,43 'sourc':18 'spread':28 'thrive':45 'want':41 'world':10"
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697694394
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.world/post/6962633"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697607994 {#2387
date: 2023-10-18 07:46:34.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: "That's a moderation problem. We don't have a highly moderated news community that's popular yet."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 5
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697615162 {#1430
date: 2023-10-18 09:46:02.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@YourEmptyWallet@lemmy.world"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1574 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1588 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1584 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1580 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1585 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1654 …}
-id: 56088
-bodyTs: "'communiti':14 'high':11 'moder':4,12 'news':13 'popular':17 'problem':5 'yet':18"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.world/t/548792/-/comment/3025974"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697611569 {#1429
date: 2023-10-18 08:46:09.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56088
} |
|
Show voter details
|
20 |
DENIED
|
moderate
|
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1595
+user: App\Entity\User {#263 …}
+entry: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Entry {#1578
+user: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\User {#1720 …}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+domain: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Domain {#2332 …}
+slug: "What-can-we-do-as-lemmy-users-to-fight-fake"
+title: "What can we do, as lemmy users, to fight fake news being pushed in the platform?"
+url: null
+body: """
I see a lot of posts lately, mainly in ‘world news’ communities, that when I investigate their source, I cannot come to any other conclostion that purposefully spreading of fake news and propaganda on lemmy.\n
\n
I love this platform and want to see it thrive, but the fact that these kind of posts can so easily populate my feed is disturbing.
"""
+type: "article"
+lang: "en"
+isOc: false
+hasEmbed: false
+commentCount: 86
+favouriteCount: 315
+score: 0
+isAdult: false
+sticky: false
+lastActive: DateTime @1697724189 {#2330
date: 2023-10-19 16:03:09.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+adaAmount: 0
+tags: null
+mentions: null
+comments: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2344 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2326 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2325 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2329 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2323 …}
+badges: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#2300 …}
+children: [
App\Entity\EntryComment {#1595}
]
-id: 6140
-titleTs: "'fake':10 'fight':9 'lemmi':6 'news':11 'platform':16 'push':13 'user':7"
-bodyTs: "'cannot':20 'come':21 'communiti':12 'conclost':25 'disturb':61 'easili':56 'fact':48 'fake':30 'feed':59 'investig':16 'kind':51 'late':7 'lemmi':35 'lot':4 'love':37 'main':8 'news':11,31 'platform':39 'popul':57 'post':6,53 'propaganda':33 'purpos':27 'see':2,43 'sourc':18 'spread':28 'thrive':45 'want':41 'world':10"
+cross: false
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+ranking: 1697694394
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://lemmy.world/post/6962633"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697607994 {#2387
date: 2023-10-18 07:46:34.0 +02:00
}
+__isInitialized__: true
…2
}
+magazine: Proxies\__CG__\App\Entity\Magazine {#1575 …}
+image: null
+parent: null
+root: null
+body: "That's a moderation problem. We don't have a highly moderated news community that's popular yet."
+lang: "en"
+isAdult: false
+favouriteCount: 5
+score: 0
+lastActive: DateTime @1697615162 {#1430
date: 2023-10-18 09:46:02.0 +02:00
}
+ip: null
+tags: null
+mentions: [
"@YourEmptyWallet@lemmy.world"
]
+children: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1574 …}
+nested: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1588 …}
+votes: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1584 …}
+reports: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1580 …}
+favourites: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1585 …}
+notifications: Doctrine\ORM\PersistentCollection {#1654 …}
-id: 56088
-bodyTs: "'communiti':14 'high':11 'moder':4,12 'news':13 'popular':17 'problem':5 'yet':18"
+ranking: 0
+commentCount: 0
+upVotes: 0
+downVotes: 0
+visibility: "visible "
+apId: "https://kbin.social/m/asklemmy@lemmy.world/t/548792/-/comment/3025974"
+editedAt: null
+createdAt: DateTimeImmutable @1697611569 {#1429
date: 2023-10-18 08:46:09.0 +02:00
}
+"title": 56088
} |
|
Show voter details
|
21 |
DENIED
|
ROLE_ADMIN
|
null |
|
Show voter details
|
22 |
DENIED
|
ROLE_MODERATOR
|
null |
|
Show voter details
|