[pdkl95]

You're making my point for me. The law is blatantly ignoring the plain reading of the highest law of the land, which creates the double standard.

I'm not talking about a technical reading of the law that takes into account modern legal theories and precedent. This is about the perception that a lot of people have that the social contract has failed. As Blyth said (see my previous [1]), "The Hamptons is not a defensible position".

[ikeboy]

Huh? The statue explicitly excludes law enforcement, this isn't a tortured reading.

What is being ignored?

[pdkl95]

I never claimed it didn't. Re-read my original post, and maybe watch that 4m video?

I only referenced the CFAA as a law that applies to the citizens. The double standard is that the citizens are supposed to respect the law while law enforcement and this judge are blatantly ignoring their half of the social contract when they skip the warrant requirement.

This isn't really that complicated. Again, legal theory doesn't matter to people that are angry and lashing out at anything they see as "establishment".

edit:

> They had a warrant.

From the article:

    The judge argued that the FBI did not even need the original warrant
    to use the NIT against visitors to PlayPen.

[ikeboy]

That's a nonbinding legal opinion not relevant to the case. If anything, it's an example of legal theory which to you should be irrelevant.

[pdkl95]

Of course. That would be relevant if I was talking about the legal theory of the case itself. If you had read my previous comment, you should have noticed that I'm talking about the popular perception.

I'm trying to give you a warning that we've struck an iceberg and the ship of state is taking on water. You're responding with technicalities about an unsinkable double hull. If you're not going to listen to the warning, that's your business.

[ikeboy]

I view this detail that you're harping on as just such a technicality.

If you want to make a point about the media exaggerating such technicalities to warp public perception, I may well agree.

But you're trying to show that there's a perception that "law enforcement and this judge are blatantly ignoring their half of the social contract when they skip the warrant requirement." This is not a very good example to show that. It may be misinterpreted by people who already want to find evidence of double standards, but it can't be the source of such a perception in the first place. You can't use it as an example of such.

[ikeboy]

> The law is blatantly ignoring the plain reading of the highest law of the land, which creates the double standard.

Please elaborate.

> when they skip the warrant requirement.

They had a warrant.