Podcasts about Fourth Amendment

Is your financial life really private? In this eye-opening episode, Cato Institute's Norbert Michel and Nicholas Anthony take us deep into the world of financial surveillance, starting with the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act. What was originally sold as a tool to catch tax cheats has quietly evolved into a sprawling system of government oversight—with banks and financial institutions acting as unwitting watchdogs. From suspicious activity reports to the third-party doctrine, Norbert and Nicholas explain how the erosion of Fourth Amendment protections has happened largely out of public view. They break down the law's legacy, how it expanded post-9/11, and why $10,000 isn't the large sum it once was. But there's reason for optimism. With growing public awareness, privacy-focused tech, and new reform legislation finally on the table, change might be within reach. If you thought your bank account was your business, think again—this episode will make you see it in a whole new light.Show Notes:Norbert Michel and Jennifer J. Schulp, "Revising the Bank Secrecy Act to Protect Privacy and Deter Criminals" Policy Analysis No. 932, July 26, 2022Nicholas Anthony, "The Right to Financial Privacy" Policy Analysis No. 945, May 2, 2023Norbert Michel, "The Bank Secrecy Act Is a Bigger Threat than FISA" Forbes, April 17, 2024Nicholas Anthony and Naomi Brockwell, "The Illusion of Financial Privacy" Reason.com, May 30, 2024 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Online Privacy and Law Enforcement Access: "We're arguing that we have a reasonable expectation of privacy when we use these platforms. If we wanted our identity out there, we wouldn't conceal it with a pen name or a handle or whatever you use, a username. And by creating these alternative names, we are telling the world we don't want everybody to have access to my true identity." - Steve PalmerWe're living in a world where so much of our personal information is online, from Snapchat and Instagram to emails and cell phone records. I break down exactly what law enforcement has to do to get their hands on your private data. Do they require a search warrant, or is a simple subpoena sufficient? I explain how the Fourth Amendment applies and discuss your rights regarding privacy on these digital platforms.I share some real examples from my own legal practice and explore what the federal Stored Communications Act says about these issues. We'll also take a look at some key Supreme Court cases that shape how this all plays out. And if you think this isn't relevant to you just because you're a law-abiding citizen, I'll tell you why privacy protections should matter to everyone.Here are my 3 key takeaways for you:The Stored Communications Act & SubpoenasLaw enforcement can sometimes gain access to account information (like your identity on Snapchat) with just a subpoena, not a full search warrant. This distinction is important because a subpoena is much easier to obtain than a search warrant.The Fourth Amendment Still MattersThe Fourth Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches, and the expectation of privacy extends to our digital lives. In many cases, courts are leaning toward requiring a search warrant (with probable cause) for authorities to access sensitive information, especially after landmark cases like Carpenter v. United States.Your Digital Identity Deserves ProtectionThere's an ongoing legal debate: Should police need a higher standard (a search warrant) to access your hidden or pseudonymous social media identities? My answer: Yes. Protecting personal privacy—even for law-abiding citizens—is foundational, no matter how convenient the shortcut for investigators.Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.Recorded at Channel 511.Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense. Copyright 2025 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law...

​In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf

​In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdf

​In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In the case identified as CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger has filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the execution of a Pennsylvania search warrant at 119 Lamsden Drive, Albrightsville, PA, as well as statements he made during that operation. Kohberger's defense argues that the search warrant was invalid due to alleged reckless or intentional omissions of material facts in the supporting affidavit. They contend that these omissions led to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search unconstitutional. Additionally, the defense asserts that law enforcement's failure to properly "knock and announce" their presence violated Kohberger's Fourth Amendment rights, and that any statements he made during the search should be suppressed as they were obtained without a Miranda warningIn response, the State maintains that the search was conducted under a valid warrant issued by a Pennsylvania court, based on substantial probable cause. They argue that the affidavit supporting the warrant was sufficient and did not omit any material information that would invalidate the warrant. The State also contends that the "knock and announce" procedure was appropriately followed, and that Kohberger's statements during the search were either spontaneous or made after he was informed of his rights, thereby complying with legal requirements. Consequently, the State requests that the court deny Kohberger's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search at 119 Lamsden Drive and his subsequent statements.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-REDACTED-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-Lamsden-Statements.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This lecture integrates two essential components of the bar exam: Criminal Procedure and Real Property. It covers constitutional protections in criminal prosecutions, key doctrines related to property ownership, estates, and land use. The discussion includes the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, as well as various property interests and landlord-tenant relationships.TakeawaysCriminal procedure is primarily concerned with constitutional protections.The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.A valid search typically requires a warrant supported by probable cause.Exceptions to the warrant requirement include exigent circumstances and consent.The exclusionary rule renders evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment inadmissible.Miranda warnings are necessary during custodial interrogations.Double jeopardy prevents multiple prosecutions for the same offense.Real property law focuses on rights and interests in land.Fee simple absolute is the most complete ownership interest.Landlords have specific duties to maintain habitable conditions. Criminal Procedure, Real Property, Bar Exam, Constitutional Protections, Property Ownership, Estates, Land Use, Legal Rights, Law Enforcement, Due Process

Hear it from his own mouth. An advantage player was arrested after refusing to give ID at an Indian casino. He was followed through the parking lot and out to the main highway. He was pulled over only seconds after pulling out of the casino. He was stopped. He was threatened. He was illegally arrested. The police officer did not follow procedure. Police officer would not give reason for stop. Police officer lied and report. Advantage player has a video proving this. What's next? Fourth Amendment violation lawsuit? Supreme Court? Bob Nursesian and Bob Loeb where are you?email me mwusa21@gmail.com

Send us a textThe ongoing activities throughout the U.S. by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been dominating the news cycle recently and concerns and questions are growing about what to do if you or someone you love has an interaction with ICE at your place of employment, school or inside your community.  Association boards face unique challenges in today's immigration environment. Should boards and their management professionals screen residents for immigration status? What about the employees of association vendors or the residents' employees? In this week's Take It To The Board podcast, host Donna DiMaggio Berger sits down with immigration law expert Ira Kurzban (he literally wrote THE BOOK on Immigration Law) for a behind-the-scenes look at his Supreme Court arguments, current ICE enforcement tactics, and a comprehensive discussion on what could happen if federal agents arrive at private residential communities.A personal story sets the stage as Ira shares how his father arrived alone from Romania at age 12. This profound connection to immigration fueled Ira's decades-long legal advocacy, including arguing McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center before the Supreme Court – a landmark case that preserved judicial review of constitutional challenges to the immigration system.The conversation shifts to practical concerns for community associations as immigration enforcement intensifies. Donna and Ira deliver clear guidance on Fourth Amendment protections, explaining the critical distinction between administrative and judicial warrants when ICE agents appear at association properties. They emphasize that private communities retain significant rights to verify warrants and protect resident privacy.Whether you serve on a board, manage a community, or simply care about constitutional rights, this conversation provides essential insights for navigating the complex intersection of immigration enforcement and private property rights. Listen now to understand what's at stake when federal authorities knock on your community's door.Conversation Highlights: Why social media has significantly influenced both immigration policy and public perception of immigrantsWhat key immigration reform Ira recommends for today's policymakers and why it mattersHow certain countries are successfully balancing border protection with legal immigration and population growthWhy board members and property managers should understand their legal rights and obligations when immigration authorities approach private residential communitiesWhat immediate, informed actions boards need to take if ICE arrives at a property to avoid facing legal consequences How Ira prepared for and argued the landmark McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and its impact on immigration lawHow immigration law is expected to evolve over the next 5 to 10 years and what factors will drive that changeRelated Links:Article: Miami Herald Op Ed: In South Florida, when ICE comes knocking, how should your HOA react?Book: Kurzbans Immigration Law Sourcebook, 15th EditionArticle: Becker Service Announcement: Florida's New Immigration LawBiography: Ira Kurzban

There have been plenty of questions surrounding the constitutionality of the investigation into Bryan Kohberger, and especially surrounding how evidence was collected and tested at the scene of the crime and then in Pennsylvania.In this epsiode, we discuss the 4th Amendment and how it relates to Bryan Kohberger and his trial moving forward.The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is as follows:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."(commercial at 9:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How DNA and Cell Phone Evidence in Idaho Murders Complied With the Fourth Amendment | The Heritage FoundationBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This document is a motion to suppress evidence filed by Bryan Kohberger's defense team regarding a search warrant executed on his AT&T mobile account. The defense argues that the warrant, obtained by law enforcement in December 2023, was unconstitutional and overbroad, violating Kohberger's rights under both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 17 of the Idaho Constitution. The warrant authorized law enforcement to obtain extensive data from Kohberger's AT&T account, including subscriber information, call and text records, cell site location data, GPS estimates, cloud storage content, and other highly invasive digital records — far beyond what was stated in the attached exhibit, which only referenced “historical” and “prospective” phone records for a two-day window.The defense claims the supporting affidavit submitted by Cpl. Brett Payne either recklessly or intentionally omitted material facts, failed to establish probable cause, and lacked proper particularization, which made the warrant facially deficient. They further argue that all information used to justify the warrant was derived from the allegedly unconstitutional use of Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), contaminating the warrant and rendering all derived data inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Because of these issues, the motion asks the court to suppress all evidence obtained through this AT&T warrant, asserting that the warrant process failed both in legal standard and in execution, compromising Kohberger's constitutional protections.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:111424-Motion-Supress-Memorandum-Support-ATT-First-Warrant.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

00:02:31 - 00:03:49: Palantir's development of a centralizedsurveillance database under the Trump administration, merginggovernment data to track citizens, linked to Peter Thiel and CIA'sIn-Q-Tel.00:23:42 - 00:25:42: Palantir's database criticized as a FourthAmendment violation, enabling a digital general warrant that compilesextensive personal data, eroding constitutional protections.01:07:27 - 01:08:51: Palantir's geospatial and anticipatoryintelligence compared to “Pre-Crime,” with the internet as asurveillance tool, and Palantir depicted as the “Eye of Sauron.”01:20:21 - 01:22:54: Ukraine's deployment of drone swarms from trucksto destroy Russian bombers, highlighting the shift to cost-effective,autonomous warfare with significant strategic impact.01:31:06 - 01:33:55: Ukraine's drone attack framed as a modern PearlHarbor, revealing Russia's outdated military and U.S. vulnerability toasymmetric drone warfare, advocating peace over escalation.01:38:27 - 01:39:40: Ukrainian sabotage derailing trains in Russia'sBryansk and Kursk regions, killing seven and injuring others, seen asterrorism to disrupt peace talks, with possible Western involvement.(Added back for its intriguing suggestion of covert Westerninvolvement in escalating conflict, tying into geopoliticalmanipulation.)01:54:47 - 01:58:45: Geese Busters exposes a duck farm's false birdflu claim, with only 2-3 sick birds, suggesting governmentmanipulation to justify culling and farmer payouts.02:06:48 - 02:08:29: Geese Busters theorizes government culling ofbirds to clear airspace for drones, as birds attack drones, posingrisks to surveillance and weaponized drone operations, with anecdotesof hawks targeting drones. (Added back for its unique connectionbetween bird culling and drone surveillance, enhancing thesurveillance and warfare narrative.)02:11:40 - 02:13:43: Critique of inhumane government methods likesuffocating poultry with foam, driven by false bird flu claims,incentivizing farmers with large payouts, inflating food prices, anddisrupting supply chains. (Added back for its expose ofgovernment-driven food supply manipulation, linking to broader controlmechanisms.)02:55:19 - 02:58:11: Ukrainian billionaire Vadim Nova detailsZelensky's persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, banning itand imprisoning clergy, underscoring his dictatorial rule backed bythe West. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment. Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” […]

00:02:31 - 00:03:49: Palantir's development of a centralizedsurveillance database under the Trump administration, merginggovernment data to track citizens, linked to Peter Thiel and CIA'sIn-Q-Tel.00:23:42 - 00:25:42: Palantir's database criticized as a FourthAmendment violation, enabling a digital general warrant that compilesextensive personal data, eroding constitutional protections.01:07:27 - 01:08:51: Palantir's geospatial and anticipatoryintelligence compared to “Pre-Crime,” with the internet as asurveillance tool, and Palantir depicted as the “Eye of Sauron.”01:20:21 - 01:22:54: Ukraine's deployment of drone swarms from trucksto destroy Russian bombers, highlighting the shift to cost-effective,autonomous warfare with significant strategic impact.01:31:06 - 01:33:55: Ukraine's drone attack framed as a modern PearlHarbor, revealing Russia's outdated military and U.S. vulnerability toasymmetric drone warfare, advocating peace over escalation.01:38:27 - 01:39:40: Ukrainian sabotage derailing trains in Russia'sBryansk and Kursk regions, killing seven and injuring others, seen asterrorism to disrupt peace talks, with possible Western involvement.(Added back for its intriguing suggestion of covert Westerninvolvement in escalating conflict, tying into geopoliticalmanipulation.)01:54:47 - 01:58:45: Geese Busters exposes a duck farm's false birdflu claim, with only 2-3 sick birds, suggesting governmentmanipulation to justify culling and farmer payouts.02:06:48 - 02:08:29: Geese Busters theorizes government culling ofbirds to clear airspace for drones, as birds attack drones, posingrisks to surveillance and weaponized drone operations, with anecdotesof hawks targeting drones. (Added back for its unique connectionbetween bird culling and drone surveillance, enhancing thesurveillance and warfare narrative.)02:11:40 - 02:13:43: Critique of inhumane government methods likesuffocating poultry with foam, driven by false bird flu claims,incentivizing farmers with large payouts, inflating food prices, anddisrupting supply chains. (Added back for its expose ofgovernment-driven food supply manipulation, linking to broader controlmechanisms.)02:55:19 - 02:58:11: Ukrainian billionaire Vadim Nova detailsZelensky's persecution of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, banning itand imprisoning clergy, underscoring his dictatorial rule backed bythe West. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.Featuring:Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

How IGG DNA Could Be Used Against You, A Warning From Ph.D, Dan Krane What if your family DNA test revealed more than just your ancestry? With millions of Americans uploading their genetic information to services like 23andMe, the implications of genetic surveillance have never been more chilling. Dr. Dan Krane unpacks the unsettling ways DNA databases are being leveraged—from solving cold cases to exposing family secrets—and the potential for misuse. From military warnings to hacked databases, could your genetic code be the next tool in espionage or coercion? And what happens when the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment are tested in cases like Bryan Kohberger? Is genetic surveillance the future, or a dystopian nightmare waiting to unfold? #DNAPrivacy #ForensicScience #GeneticSurveillance #TrueCrimeToday #BryanKohberger #GeneticTesting #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

How IGG DNA Could Be Used Against You, A Warning From Ph.D, Dan Krane What if your family DNA test revealed more than just your ancestry? With millions of Americans uploading their genetic information to services like 23andMe, the implications of genetic surveillance have never been more chilling. Dr. Dan Krane unpacks the unsettling ways DNA databases are being leveraged—from solving cold cases to exposing family secrets—and the potential for misuse. From military warnings to hacked databases, could your genetic code be the next tool in espionage or coercion? And what happens when the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment are tested in cases like Bryan Kohberger? Is genetic surveillance the future, or a dystopian nightmare waiting to unfold? #DNAPrivacy #ForensicScience #GeneticSurveillance #TrueCrimeToday #BryanKohberger #GeneticTesting #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

How IGG DNA Could Be Used Against You, A Warning From Ph.D, Dan Krane What if your family DNA test revealed more than just your ancestry? With millions of Americans uploading their genetic information to services like 23andMe, the implications of genetic surveillance have never been more chilling. Dr. Dan Krane unpacks the unsettling ways DNA databases are being leveraged—from solving cold cases to exposing family secrets—and the potential for misuse. From military warnings to hacked databases, could your genetic code be the next tool in espionage or coercion? And what happens when the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment are tested in cases like Bryan Kohberger? Is genetic surveillance the future, or a dystopian nightmare waiting to unfold? #DNAPrivacy #ForensicScience #GeneticSurveillance #TrueCrimeToday #BryanKohberger #GeneticTesting #HiddenKillers Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

The Cyberlaw Podcast is back from hiatus – briefly!  I've used the hiatus well, skiing the Canadian Ski Marathon, trekking through Patagonia, and having a heart valve repaired (all good now!). So when I saw (and disagreed with ) Orin Kerr's new book, I figured it was time for episode 502 of the Cyberlaw Podcast.  Orin and I spend the episode digging into his book, The Digital Fourth Amendment: Privacy and Policing in Our Online World. The book is part theory, part casebook, part policy roadmap—and somehow still manages to be readable, even for non-lawyers. Orin's goal? To make sense of how the Fourth Amendment should apply in a world of smartphones, cloud storage, government-preserved Facebook accounts, and surveillance everywhere. The core notion of the book is “equilibrium adjustment”—the idea that courts have always tweaked Fourth Amendment rules to preserve a balance between law enforcement power and personal privacy, even as technology shifts the terrain. From Prohibition-era wiretaps to the modern smartphone, that balancing act has never stopped. Orin walks us through how this theory applies to search warrants for digital devices, plain view exceptions in the age of limitless data, and the surprisingly murky question of whether copying your files counts as a seizure. It's very persuasive, I say, if you ignore Congress's contribution to equilibrium. In some cases, the courts are simply discovering principles in the Fourth Amendment that Congress put in statute decades earlier. Worse, courts (and Orin) have too often privileged their idea of equilibrium over the equilibrium chosen by Congress, ignoring or implicitly declaring unconstitutional compromises between privacy and law enforcement that are every bit as defensible as the courts'. One example is preservation orders—those quiet government requests that tell internet providers to make a copy of your account just in case. Orin argues that's a Fourth Amendment search and needs a warrant, even if no one looks at the data yet. But preservation orders without a warrant are authorized by Congress; ignoring Congress's work should require more than a vague notion of equilibrium rebalancing, or so I argue. Orin is unpersuaded. We also revisit Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 Supreme Court decision on location tracking, and talk about what it does—and doesn't—mean for the third-party doctrine. Orin's take is refreshingly narrow: Carpenter didn't blow up the doctrine, but it did acknowledge that some records, even held by third parties, are just too revealing to ignore. I argue that Carpenter is the judiciary's Vietnam war – it has committed troops to an unwinnable effort to replace the third party rule with a doomed series of touchy-feely ad hoc rulings. That said, Orin's version of the decision, which deserves to be called the Kerr-penter doctrine, is more limited and more defensible than most of the legal (and judicial) interpretations over the last several years. Finally, we talk border searches, network surveillance, and whether the Supreme Court has any idea where to go next. (Spoiler: probably not.)

The Cyberlaw Podcast is back from hiatus – briefly!  I've used the hiatus well, skiing the Canadian Ski Marathon, trekking through Patagonia, and having a heart valve repaired (all good now!). So when I saw (and disagreed with ) Orin Kerr's new book, I figured it was time for episode 502 of the Cyberlaw Podcast.  Orin and I spend the episode digging into his book, The Digital Fourth Amendment: Privacy and Policing in Our Online World. The book is part theory, part casebook, part policy roadmap—and somehow still manages to be readable, even for non-lawyers. Orin's goal? To make sense of how the Fourth Amendment should apply in a world of smartphones, cloud storage, government-preserved Facebook accounts, and surveillance everywhere. The core notion of the book is “equilibrium adjustment”—the idea that courts have always tweaked Fourth Amendment rules to preserve a balance between law enforcement power and personal privacy, even as technology shifts the terrain. From Prohibition-era wiretaps to the modern smartphone, that balancing act has never stopped. Orin walks us through how this theory applies to search warrants for digital devices, plain view exceptions in the age of limitless data, and the surprisingly murky question of whether copying your files counts as a seizure. It's very persuasive, I say, if you ignore Congress's contribution to equilibrium. In some cases, the courts are simply discovering principles in the Fourth Amendment that Congress put in statute decades earlier. Worse, courts (and Orin) have too often privileged their idea of equilibrium over the equilibrium chosen by Congress, ignoring or implicitly declaring unconstitutional compromises between privacy and law enforcement that are every bit as defensible as the courts'. One example is preservation orders—those quiet government requests that tell internet providers to make a copy of your account just in case. Orin argues that's a Fourth Amendment search and needs a warrant, even if no one looks at the data yet. But preservation orders without a warrant are authorized by Congress; ignoring Congress's work should require more than a vague notion of equilibrium rebalancing, or so I argue. Orin is unpersuaded. We also revisit Carpenter v. United States, the 2018 Supreme Court decision on location tracking, and talk about what it does—and doesn't—mean for the third-party doctrine. Orin's take is refreshingly narrow: Carpenter didn't blow up the doctrine, but it did acknowledge that some records, even held by third parties, are just too revealing to ignore. I argue that Carpenter is the judiciary's Vietnam war – it has committed troops to an unwinnable effort to replace the third party rule with a doomed series of touchy-feely ad hoc rulings. That said, Orin's version of the decision, which deserves to be called the Kerr-penter doctrine, is more limited and more defensible than most of the legal (and judicial) interpretations over the last several years. Finally, we talk border searches, network surveillance, and whether the Supreme Court has any idea where to go next. (Spoiler: probably not.)

The Fourth Amendment is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." But — what's unreasonable? That question has fueled a century's worth of court rulings that have dramatically expanded the power of individual police officers in the U.S. Today on the show, how an amendment that was supposed to limit government power has ended up enabling it. This episode originally published in 2024.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

From December 4, 2023: Is the Fourth Amendment doing any work anymore? In a forthcoming article entitled “Government Purchases of Private Data,” Matthew Tokson, a professor at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, details how, in recent years, federal and state agencies have begun to purchase location information and other consumer data, as government attorneys have mostly concluded that purchasing data is a valid way to bypass Fourth Amendment restrictions. Lawfare Senior Editor Stephanie Pell sat down with Matthew to discuss this article, where he attempts to bring this constitutional evasion to light. They talked about the two main arguments offered for why the purchase of private data does not violate the Fourth Amendment, his responses to these arguments, and the recommendations he makes to courts, legislators, and government agencies to address the Fourth Amendment and privacy concerns surrounding government purchases of private data.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The REAL ID Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May of 2005, as part of https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf (H.R. 1268). Due to costs, logistical issues, legal questions, its full implementation was delayed until 2008, 2011, 2013, and then in 2014 set to be gradually introduced instead. But delays continued into 2020, 2021, and finally until https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_fps_id-requirements-for-federal-facilities.pdf, when it went into full force - kind of. The REAL ID is a new form of https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/about-real-id. Even after 20 years of preparations, implementation is causing widespread confusion across U.S. airports. Up to 7% of domestic flight customers still do not have the new ID and this, mixed with general confusion about requirements, regulations, enforcement, etc., are causing delays and heightening suspicion of every citizen, especially because of the growing frustration and additional screening procedures put in place. However, those without the REAL ID can still fly. How? Well, they will be subject to additional security and the TSA will have to manually check their regular driver's licenses like they always have. These people may also be subject to additional questioning and documentation checkpoints. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/28/tsa-lehigh-valley-international-airport-gets-new-credential?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd591leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR6mF6CiS3Eva2ofGQGsU3L5tLIhNJkpUFiZAm1K74M_UpSAsEciqQY_oTWBKA_aem_3wMgsHVa4FW3Utc3QwY9qA just introduced new credential authentication technology to improve checkpoint screening procedures, yet another layer of security. https://www.usa.gov/real-id“Yes. If you do not upgrade your license or state ID, you can use a passport or one of these other acceptable forms of identification to fly.” The list provided includes everything from passports to tribal IDs and enhanced driver's licenses or enhanced identification cards, themselves basically state-run programs akin to the federal REAL ID. What it does not say is that you still may be able to fly without any of those additional ID cards. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the exemption is not just a temporary measure while the bugs are worked out or a matter of presenting a passport: “If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/.” Without a REAL ID you can still travel, but you will likely be subject to the same, or increased, harassment, demeaning comments, or downright assault, by TSA agents trained to see noncompliants as terrorists. Anyone having ever opted out of the full body scanner knows this to be true. And by definition, this is coercion: “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The same tactics were used from 2020-2023 for health related reasons.A https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-getting-real-id-090257989.html: "Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant and who do not have another acceptable alternative (i.e., passport) can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint.” Notice that the words “the possibility” and not the actual guarantee itself, i.e., coercion. And coercion is one of the main red lines in the sand for any constitutionality of the REAL ID in the first place, because the anti-commandeering doctrine of SCOTUS prohibits federal authorities form compelling states to enact or administer federal programs - also, see Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and people. This can be avoided by outsourcing the whole thing, including the database. Each state has a motor vehicle department which collects and stores the data for REAL ID and EDL or EIC. All of that data is this shared with the private nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), run by boards, directors, and other agency affiliations related to the DMV in each state. Also, non-governmental entities, including corporations, nonprofits, local governments, and individual law enforcement agencies, that align with AAMVA's goals but do not have voting rights in governance, run the AAMVA. As of May 21, 2025, reports are making the rounds that the https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/21/tsa-airport-security-privatization/83767563007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd599leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR5FprsNQe5xs23YIi93GovLHkVz87_r7qfnoNZEfe15q7-Oznos2DTb5Lwmeg_aem_Uo91GFvr1c-9wZtd0-Rxag. The REAL ID has never fully been challenged due to political compromise resulting in delays, and states slowly adopting the standard. It's not illegal if states and people adopt the policy themselves through a sort of drawn out coercion of threats and the thought that it will never be fully implemented anyways after twenty years. Proponents, of course, argue that it keeps the country safe, linking the lack of these national ID cards to the cause of 911 - argued for under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. As https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-id-america-now-national-110039671.html, however, “With REAL ID, America now has National ID cards and Internal Passports.”Interestingly, the original bill specifically says the Secretary of Homeland Security can expand the use of REAL ID for “any other purposes” they “shall determine,” with no other authorization. When you https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs, they say “No. REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card. REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of REAL ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.”In other words, it's not a card but a standard; its not a federal database, but a state database that links to a nonprofit controlled by the federal government; it's about privacy, even though the records are collected as part of a drag net of coercion and threats; it's about ensuring consistency, but each jurisdiction issues its own “unique license” like they always have. Of course, none of this is discussed, debated, or even known by the public. Instead, they read heartfelt stories about https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-challenging-real-id-process-is-stranding-immigrants/ar-AA1F7FE9 who are essentially exempt anyways if they have a permanent resident card, border crossing card, foreign issued passport, immigration services card, and the like. Or they hear about https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fake-real-id-sites-164059826.html targeting travelers, as if the “real” REAL ID isn't itself a scam and unconstitutional, which is probably the main reason that DHS says https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/” even without it. So what's the point? It's more extortion for profit (like TSA pre-check), security theater (like hygiene theater in 2020), coercive tactics to enforce compliance with illegal and unlawful dictates (like masking), and another step in criminalizing law abiding citizens (like the https://www.newsweek.com/what-quiet-skies-details-about-secret-flight-spy-program-revealed-1047915). Even the name is a scam, the “REAL ID” as opposed to all those fake sate issued ones by the same states that are now going to be forced to issue the true REAL ID. It's like “patriot act” or “big, beautiful bill.”  Watch this episode https://www.youtube.com/live/sww0QMst_SY-https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407https://thesecretteachings.info/donate-subscribe/ http://tstradio.info/https://cash.app/$rdgable: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.com EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

The REAL ID Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May of 2005, as part of https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf (H.R. 1268). Due to costs, logistical issues, legal questions, its full implementation was delayed until 2008, 2011, 2013, and then in 2014 set to be gradually introduced instead. But delays continued into 2020, 2021, and finally until https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_fps_id-requirements-for-federal-facilities.pdf, when it went into full force - kind of.  The REAL ID is a new form of https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/about-real-id. Even after 20 years of preparations, implementation is causing widespread confusion across U.S. airports. Up to 7% of domestic flight customers still do not have the new ID and this, mixed with general confusion about requirements, regulations, enforcement, etc., are causing delays and heightening suspicion of every citizen, especially because of the growing frustration and additional screening procedures put in place. However, those without the REAL ID can still fly. How? Well, they will be subject to additional security and the TSA will have to manually check their regular driver's licenses like they always have. These people may also be subject to additional questioning and documentation checkpoints. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/28/tsa-lehigh-valley-international-airport-gets-new-credential?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd591leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR6mF6CiS3Eva2ofGQGsU3L5tLIhNJkpUFiZAm1K74M_UpSAsEciqQY_oTWBKA_aem_3wMgsHVa4FW3Utc3QwY9qA just introduced new credential authentication technology to improve checkpoint screening procedures, yet another layer of security. https://www.usa.gov/real-id“Yes. If you do not upgrade your license or state ID, you can use a passport or one of these other acceptable forms of identification to fly.” The list provided includes everything from passports to tribal IDs and enhanced driver's licenses or enhanced identification cards, themselves basically state-run programs akin to the federal REAL ID. What it does not say is that you still may be able to fly without any of those additional ID cards. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the exemption is not just a temporary measure while the bugs are worked out or a matter of presenting a passport: “If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/.” Without a REAL ID you can still travel, but you will likely be subject to the same, or increased, harassment, demeaning comments, or downright assault, by TSA agents trained to see noncompliants as terrorists. Anyone having ever opted out of the full body scanner knows this to be true. And by definition, this is coercion: “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The same tactics were used from 2020-2023 for health related reasons.A https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-getting-real-id-090257989.html: "Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant and who do not have another acceptable alternative (i.e., passport) can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint.” Notice that the words “the possibility” and not the actual guarantee itself, i.e., coercion. And coercion is one of the main red lines in the sand for any constitutionality of the REAL ID in the first place, because the anti-commandeering doctrine of SCOTUS prohibits federal authorities form compelling states to enact or administer federal programs - also, see Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and people. This can be avoided by outsourcing the whole thing, including the database. Each state has a motor vehicle department which collects and stores the data for REAL ID and EDL or EIC. All of that data is this shared with the private nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), run by boards, directors, and other agency affiliations related to the DMV in each state. Also, non-governmental entities, including corporations, nonprofits, local governments, and individual law enforcement agencies, that align with AAMVA's goals but do not have voting rights in governance, run the AAMVA. As of May 21, 2025, reports are making the rounds that the https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/21/tsa-airport-security-privatization/83767563007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd599leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR5FprsNQe5xs23YIi93GovLHkVz87_r7qfnoNZEfe15q7-Oznos2DTb5Lwmeg_aem_Uo91GFvr1c-9wZtd0-Rxag. The REAL ID has never fully been challenged due to political compromise resulting in delays, and states slowly adopting the standard. It's not illegal if states and people adopt the policy themselves through a sort of drawn out coercion of threats and the thought that it will never be fully implemented anyways after twenty years. Proponents, of course, argue that it keeps the country safe, linking the lack of these national ID cards to the cause of 911 - argued for under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. As https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-id-america-now-national-110039671.html, however, “With REAL ID, America now has National ID cards and Internal Passports.”Interestingly, the original bill specifically says the Secretary of Homeland Security can expand the use of REAL ID for “any other purposes” they “shall determine,” with no other authorization. When you https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs, they say “No. REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card. REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of REAL ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.”In other words, it's not a card but a standard; its not a federal database, but a state database that links to a nonprofit controlled by the federal government; it's about privacy, even though the records are collected as part of a drag net of coercion and threats; it's about ensuring consistency, but each jurisdiction issues its own “unique license” like they always have. Of course, none of this is discussed, debated, or even known by the public. Instead, they read heartfelt stories about https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-challenging-real-id-process-is-stranding-immigrants/ar-AA1F7FE9 who are essentially exempt anyways if they have a permanent resident card, border crossing card, foreign issued passport, immigration services card, and the like. Or they hear about https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fake-real-id-sites-164059826.html targeting travelers, as if the “real” REAL ID isn't itself a scam and unconstitutional, which is probably the main reason that DHS says https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/” even without it. So what's the point? It's more extortion for profit (like TSA pre-check), security theater (like hygiene theater in 2020), coercive tactics to enforce compliance with illegal and unlawful dictates (like masking), and another step in criminalizing law abiding citizens (like the https://www.newsweek.com/what-quiet-skies-details-about-secret-flight-spy-program-revealed-1047915). Even the name is a scam, the “REAL ID” as opposed to all those fake sate issued ones by the same states that are now going to be forced to issue the true REAL ID. It's like “patriot act” or “big, beautiful bill.” *The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.-https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407https://thesecretteachings.info/donate-subscribe/https://x.com/TST___Radio https://www.facebook.com/thesecretteachingshttps://www.youtube.com/@TSTRadioOfficialhttp://tstradio.infohttps://cash.app/$rdgable: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.comEMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Barnes v Felix.    In this case, the court considered this issue: Should courts apply the “moment of the threat” doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment?The case was decided on May 15, 2025. In Barnes v Felix, the Supreme Court rejected the “moment-of-threat” doctrine when evaluating excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that this doctrine, which limits analysis to the precise moment an officer perceives a threat, improperly narrows the required inquiry. Instead, courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances,” including relevant events and context leading up to the use of force, to assess whether an officer's actions were objectively reasonable. The Court emphasized that excluding prior events conflicts with the fact-dependent, context-sensitive approach mandated by the Fourth Amendment.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf

On the latest episode of the Conduit Street Podcast, Ben Yelin joins Kevin Kinnally to break down the seismic shifts in federal emergency management, including recent leadership changes at FEMA, the termination of the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, and the ripple effects for local governments. As Maryland counties contend with rising threats — from extreme weather to infrastructure vulnerabilities — federal support remains a critical lifeline. Learn how the loss of BRIC funding disrupts local resilience projects and what it means for shovel-ready stormwater upgrades, flood mitigation, and coastal protections across the state. The conversation also covers MACo's recent advocacy push, where county emergency managers called on Maryland's congressional delegation to protect FEMA's mission and restore critical federal programs. About the GuestBen Yelin, JD, is the Program Director for Public Policy and External Affairs at the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security, where he consults public and private entities on homeland security, cybersecurity, and emergency management policy. He is also an adjunct faculty member at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, where he teaches courses on electronic surveillance and the Fourth Amendment. Useful LinksPrevious Conduit Street Coverage: County Emergency Managers to Congress: Protect FEMA, Restore BRICPrevious Conduit Street Coverage: FEMA Cancels Resilience Grants, Leaving Counties at RiskFollow us on Socials!MACo on TwitterMACo on Facebook

In this episode we continue the story of Daniel Rigmaiden, a man arrested for tax fraud in 2008 who reveals the Stingray surveillance device used by the Feds to track his location. Despite being in jail, Rigmaiden tirelessly researches and files numerous motions, arguing that the use of Stingrays violated citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. His determination attracts the attention of the ACLU and the EFF, ultimately influencing government policy on surveillance practices, policies that protect privacy for all of us. ResourcesRigmaiden court documentsDOJ: Justice Department Announces Enhanced Policy for Use of Cell-Site SimulatorsThe News Tribune: Stingray snared him, now he helps write rules for surveillance ACLU: Fighting for TransparencyWall Street Journal: Judge Questions Tools That Grab Cellphone Data on Innocent People ACLU websiteEFF website.Send us a textDigital Disruption with Geoff Nielson Discover how technology is reshaping our lives and livelihoods.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showJoin our Patreon to listen ad-free!

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs's iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government's warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government's affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This week, Ben and Dave tackle two major policy stories making headlines. Ben unpacks the Fourth Circuit's long-awaited ruling in United States v. Chatrie, where the court failed to reach a majority decision on whether geofence warrants violate the Fourth Amendment. Instead, the panel affirmed the lower court's decision based solely on the good-faith exception, leaving key constitutional questions unanswered. Then, Dave covers the latest twist in the Epic Games v. Apple saga: a federal judge ruled that Apple willfully defied a court order to open up iOS app payment options—referring the company and a senior executive for potential criminal investigation. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Please take a moment to fill out an ⁠audience survey⁠! Let us know how we are doing! Links related to our show this week: ⁠The Fourth Circuit's Geofencing Case Ends Not With a Bang But A Whimper Apple violated court's order to loosen app store rules, judge says Get the weekly Caveat Briefing delivered to your inbox. Like what you heard? Be sure to check out and subscribe to our ⁠Caveat Briefing⁠, a weekly newsletter available exclusively to ⁠N2K Pro⁠ members on ⁠N2K CyberWire's⁠ website. N2K Pro members receive our Thursday wrap-up covering the latest in privacy, policy, and research news, including incidents, techniques, compliance, trends, and more. This week's ⁠Caveat Briefing⁠ covers the story of how a proposed bipartisan U.S. law aims to crack down on semiconductor chip smuggling by mandating location-tracking technology, while President Trump's 2026 budget proposes major cuts to CISA's cybersecurity efforts, signaling shifting federal priorities amid growing concerns over national security and tech competition with China. Curious about the details? Head over to the ⁠Caveat Briefing⁠ for the full scoop and additional compelling stories. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to ⁠caveat@thecyberwire.com⁠. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In 2014, the US government chose not to take a massive, rock-solid tax fraud case to trial. But why? This episode kicks off the tale of Daniel Rigmaiden, a hacker who exploited a legal loophole to regain his freedom. Find out how Rigmaiden's method for online connection, his Air Card, was both his downfall and his salvation. Take a deep dive into the data cell providers collect, how they share it with law enforcement, and the Fourth Amendment's role in protecting privacy. And tune in for Part II, where the real drama unfolds.01:02 The Rise of a Hacker03:04 The Air Card: A Game Changer08:17 How Cell Providers Track You10:46 The Fourth Amendment and Your Privacy18:33 The Stingray: A Controversial Surveillance ToolResourcesFourth Amendment PrimerUnited States of America v. Daniel David Rigmaiden, Government's Response to Defendant's Motion to SuppressVideo: Daniel Rigmaiden at Aaron Swartz Day 2017.Send us a textEveryday AI: Your daily guide to grown with Generative AICan't keep up with AI? We've got you. Everyday AI helps you keep up and get ahead.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showJoin our Patreon to listen ad-free!

The Hottest AI Job of 2023 Is Already Obsolete NYT Asks: Should We Start Taking the Welfare of AI Seriously? Microsoft finally ships controversial Windows 11 'Recall' feature after year-long delay — now rolling out to all Copilot+ PCs Sam Altman says OpenAI is no longer "compute-constrained" — after Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company's Browser Chief Tells Judge What Happens When You Pay People Not to Use Google Search? 4chan Is Back Online, Days After The Infamous Hack That Leaked Its 'Janitors' Emails Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Is Over Google is scrapping its planned changes for third-party cookies in Chrome Google's revenue tops Wall Street's expectations — and the stock climbs Google will stop supporting early Nest thermostats on October 25 PC shipments spike as Windows 10's end and U.S. tariffs loom Apple Aims To Source All US iPhones From India in Pivot Away From China Nintendo Switch 2 pre-orders: Sold out at most retailers including GameStop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and others The $20,000 American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, and no touchscreen Tesla whistleblower says Musk wanted to deport her team for raising brake issue In a Boon for Tesla, Feds Weaken Rules for Reporting on Self-Driving Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Abrar Al-Heeti, Daniel Rubino, and Cathy Gellis Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: kinsta.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code TWIT outsystems.com/twit drata.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit

The Hottest AI Job of 2023 Is Already Obsolete NYT Asks: Should We Start Taking the Welfare of AI Seriously? Microsoft finally ships controversial Windows 11 'Recall' feature after year-long delay — now rolling out to all Copilot+ PCs Sam Altman says OpenAI is no longer "compute-constrained" — after Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company's Browser Chief Tells Judge What Happens When You Pay People Not to Use Google Search? 4chan Is Back Online, Days After The Infamous Hack That Leaked Its 'Janitors' Emails Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Is Over Google is scrapping its planned changes for third-party cookies in Chrome Google's revenue tops Wall Street's expectations — and the stock climbs Google will stop supporting early Nest thermostats on October 25 PC shipments spike as Windows 10's end and U.S. tariffs loom Apple Aims To Source All US iPhones From India in Pivot Away From China Nintendo Switch 2 pre-orders: Sold out at most retailers including GameStop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and others The $20,000 American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, and no touchscreen Tesla whistleblower says Musk wanted to deport her team for raising brake issue In a Boon for Tesla, Feds Weaken Rules for Reporting on Self-Driving Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Abrar Al-Heeti, Daniel Rubino, and Cathy Gellis Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: kinsta.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code TWIT outsystems.com/twit drata.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit

The Hottest AI Job of 2023 Is Already Obsolete NYT Asks: Should We Start Taking the Welfare of AI Seriously? Microsoft finally ships controversial Windows 11 'Recall' feature after year-long delay — now rolling out to all Copilot+ PCs Sam Altman says OpenAI is no longer "compute-constrained" — after Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company's Browser Chief Tells Judge What Happens When You Pay People Not to Use Google Search? 4chan Is Back Online, Days After The Infamous Hack That Leaked Its 'Janitors' Emails Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Is Over Google is scrapping its planned changes for third-party cookies in Chrome Google's revenue tops Wall Street's expectations — and the stock climbs Google will stop supporting early Nest thermostats on October 25 PC shipments spike as Windows 10's end and U.S. tariffs loom Apple Aims To Source All US iPhones From India in Pivot Away From China Nintendo Switch 2 pre-orders: Sold out at most retailers including GameStop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and others The $20,000 American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, and no touchscreen Tesla whistleblower says Musk wanted to deport her team for raising brake issue In a Boon for Tesla, Feds Weaken Rules for Reporting on Self-Driving Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Abrar Al-Heeti, Daniel Rubino, and Cathy Gellis Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: kinsta.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code TWIT outsystems.com/twit drata.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit

The Hottest AI Job of 2023 Is Already Obsolete NYT Asks: Should We Start Taking the Welfare of AI Seriously? Microsoft finally ships controversial Windows 11 'Recall' feature after year-long delay — now rolling out to all Copilot+ PCs Sam Altman says OpenAI is no longer "compute-constrained" — after Microsoft lost its exclusive cloud provider status Only Google Can Run Chrome, Company's Browser Chief Tells Judge What Happens When You Pay People Not to Use Google Search? 4chan Is Back Online, Days After The Infamous Hack That Leaked Its 'Janitors' Emails Mark Zuckerberg Says Social Media Is Over Google is scrapping its planned changes for third-party cookies in Chrome Google's revenue tops Wall Street's expectations — and the stock climbs Google will stop supporting early Nest thermostats on October 25 PC shipments spike as Windows 10's end and U.S. tariffs loom Apple Aims To Source All US iPhones From India in Pivot Away From China Nintendo Switch 2 pre-orders: Sold out at most retailers including GameStop, Walmart, Target, Best Buy and others The $20,000 American-made electric pickup with no paint, no stereo, and no touchscreen Tesla whistleblower says Musk wanted to deport her team for raising brake issue In a Boon for Tesla, Feds Weaken Rules for Reporting on Self-Driving Enter The Fourth Amendment, Yet One More Reason DOGE Is Such A Constitutional Nightmare Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Abrar Al-Heeti, Daniel Rubino, and Cathy Gellis Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: kinsta.com/twit monarchmoney.com with code TWIT outsystems.com/twit drata.com/twit expressvpn.com/twit

This week we are joined by Avani Desai, CEO of Schellman, who is talking about what we can expect now that Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) is in effect. Ben's got the story of how a federal judge ruled that Google broke antitrust laws to maintain its dominance in online advertising, marking the second major legal blow in a year that could lead to a dramatic restructuring of the tech giant. Dave's got the story of a Nevada judge who ruled that "tower dumps"—grabbing cell tower data on thousands of people at once—are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment… but still let the cops use the data this time because they acted in good faith. While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Please take a moment to fill out an audience survey! Let us know how we are doing! Links related to our show this week: Google Broke the Law to Keep Its Advertising Monopoly, a Judge Rules Judge Rules Blanket Search of Cell Tower Data Unconstitutional Get the weekly Caveat Briefing delivered to your inbox. Like what you heard? Be sure to check out and subscribe to our Caveat Briefing, a weekly newsletter available exclusively to N2K Pro members on N2K CyberWire's website. N2K Pro members receive our Thursday wrap-up covering the latest in privacy, policy, and research news, including incidents, techniques, compliance, trends, and more. This week's Caveat Briefing covers the story of Google losing its second major antitrust case, escalating U.S.-China trade tensions impacting chipmakers, a new probe into 23andMe's data handling, and a lawsuit against Discord for child safety concerns—highlighting growing scrutiny of tech giants across legal, regulatory, and geopolitical fronts. Curious about the details? Head over to the Caveat Briefing for the full scoop and additional compelling stories. Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to caveat@thecyberwire.com. Hope to hear from you. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices