alt Hacker NewsNo, I did not. Listen for yourself.
Later the same question was put to the government, and they admitted the same: under the government's theory a warrant would not be needed.
No, I did not. Listen for yourself.
Later the same question was put to the government, and they admitted the same: under the government's theory a warrant would not be needed.
I'll wait for the transcript but happy to listen if you have a timestamp.
> Later the same question was put to the government, and they admitted the same: under the government's theory a warrant would not be needed.
You said the opposite:
> Responder says the email, photos, and docs still need a warrant because they're like your thoughts or mail
From Orin Kerr's live tweets (Feigin for DOJ, Unikowsky for Chatrie) of what I believe you were summarizing there:
> Barrett: I'm concerned with your position being maximalist, too. Calendars, photos, email. And monitoring of homes. Are you conceding this would be a search?
> Feigin: Warrant is needed for calendars, photos, email. [OK comments: Virtual lockers]. Not conceding homes.
...
> Finally, Unikowksy rebuttal: We welcome the government's concession as to calendars, photos. But I don't understand how they distinguish that from this.
https://bsky.app/profile/orinkerr.bsky.social/post/3mkigsbw6...
https://xcancel.com/OrinKerr/status/2048793893420875849#m