[willcipriano]

> been shown to be constitutional in appellate courts.

So has civil asset forfeiture but that doesn't actually make it constitutional.

When a agent of the government wants to search mine or the property of my child, I'm going to make them get a warrant every time. I have nothing to hide, but it's not worth the risk of something being misunderstood or misinterpreted and ending up with consequences from this fishing expedition. They can "particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" along with their probable cause on the outset or not search at all. Terrorism isn't a sufficient reason to throw out the constitution, it's laughable to suggest name calling is.

My kid isn't old enough yet but stuff like this, monitoring software on laptop used for school (but purchased by parents) pushes me towards homeschooling.

[mlyle]

> So has civil asset forfeiture but that doesn't actually make it constitutional.

I don't feel like semantic arguments. If an agent of the state engages in behavior that appellate courts have declared to be legal, you are unlikely to get redress by reporting this act to the police.

[willcipriano]

They school won't be able to get into the phone, they will have no choice but to call the police if they want to view the contents. That way my attorney can get involved and ensure the search is conducted properly.

[mlyle]

> they will have no choice but to call the police if they want to view the contents.

The school may be able to impose consequences for refusal to comply.

[willcipriano]

Then we will find another school. Complying with tyrants is never a solution.

[mlyle]

K.