Yesterdays operation Ironside .
Does that apply in this situation when law enforcement owns the company and system that provides the app, as opposed to requiring access to a 3rd party system?I have been reading a LOT of stories about this. Not One Single Story or "Journalist" asked what COURTS or JUDGES authorized wiretap or electronic surveillance warrants. NO story examined this from the standpoint of constitutionality. How the hell is that possible?
Does that apply in this situation when law enforcement owns the company and system that provides the app, as opposed to requiring access to a 3rd party system?
Yup-- lots of Australia connections apparently. I am wondering about US citizens who were surveilled using this technology. I am still wondering how no news organizations asked ANY questions about due process rights or surveillance warrants. I looked at 7 or 8 articles from major sources-- none asked a single question about this part of the story.Another aspect, regarding "legality", is that most of this seems to have happened in foreign countries using equipment/systems supplied and developed by the FeeBeeEye. That kind of eliminates warrants in all those cases since it didn't happen here.