<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>will_brown</author><text>&amp;gt;Alleged pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the full panoply of rights available...&lt;p&gt;For starters, lets throw &lt;i&gt;right to privacy&lt;/i&gt; out the window, from the US perspective what we are talking about is 4th Amendment &amp;quot;right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;Only after THAT hurdle is cleared may the rights of the alleged criminal be intruded upon by the state...&lt;p&gt;No.  In many instances police are not limited to obtaining a warrant&amp;#x2F;judicial oversight before conducting searches and seizures (including communications).  Just a few examples: (a) if an officer conducts a lawful traffic stop, and smells marijuana (plain-view&amp;#x2F;plain-smell doctrine) the officer can lawfully search your person and the vehicle,seizing any evidence of a crime, even if unrelated to marijuana; or (b) subsequent to a DUI arrest, an officer can impound the vehicle and conduct a search&amp;#x2F;inventory of the vehicle and seize any evidence of a crime (even unrelated to the DUI).  These are some of the many lawful Government searches and seizures without prior judicial approval.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt;At least in America, a judge cannot issue a warrant for the wiretaps you described on the mere accusation that &amp;quot;so and so is a {pedophile,terrorist,drug dealer}.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;A judge certainly can issue a warrant based on accusation as long as the judge makes a finding there is probable cause.  In fact an officer can obtain a warrant from a Judge based on an anonymous tip, or what would be called hearsay evidence which would be inadmissible in an actual trial.</text><parent_chain><item><author>bmelton</author><text>&amp;gt; No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don&amp;#x27;t have it.&lt;p&gt;I know nothing of Brazilian law, but in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy.  Convicted criminals and convicted felons do not, but that is an entirely different category, and your wording seems woefully imprecise.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? I don&amp;#x27;t.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Alleged&lt;/i&gt; pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the full panoply of rights available to them as anyone else until such time as enough supporting evidence may be provided that the police can say that a) a crime has been committed, b) the alleged had the means to have committed the crime, c) the alleged had the motive to have committed the crime, d) the alleged had the opportunity to have committed the crime, and often e) the alleged is very likely to have committed the crime.&lt;p&gt;Only after THAT hurdle is cleared may the rights of the alleged criminal be intruded upon by the state, and without a grand jury, even those intrusions must be minimally invasive.&lt;p&gt;At least in America, a judge cannot issue a warrant for the wiretaps you described on the mere accusation that &amp;quot;so and so is a {pedophile,terrorist,drug dealer}.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>pqdbr</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m a judge in Brazil. Even tough I&amp;#x27;d pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals.&lt;p&gt;Mark&amp;#x27;s talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don&amp;#x27;t have it. This is not me saying; this is our Constitution saying it (and the Constitution of every Western country that I know).&lt;p&gt;We are biased to see all measures against privacy with bad eyes, specially after Snowden. But that&amp;#x27;s because you are good people and see the matter with those eyes, not with the eyes of a criminal. Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? I don&amp;#x27;t.&lt;p&gt;Also, what the NSA was (is?) doing is a complete absurd, with no judicial oversight, mass collecting everything they can get in secrecy. This has nothing to do with what we have here. In Brazil, only a judge can authorize someone to be wiretapped, it can only be done in criminal cases with jail time (no civil cases). Also, the judge must specify a single phone number or single e-mail account and the decision must be reviewed every 15 days, otherwise it expires. Also, there&amp;#x27;s a national database of wiretaps that every judge must feed by the end of the month, specifying how many wiretaps there are currently running.&lt;p&gt;WhatsApp and Facebook are not, by any means, above the law. If they want to provide a communication service here, the law is clear that they must abide by judicial orders that allow wiretapping in very specific cases.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban</title><url>http://thephonesgsm.blogspot.com/2015/12/telegram-gains-1-million-users-after.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Brakenshire</author><text>&amp;gt; I know nothing of Brazilian law, but in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy.&lt;p&gt;I think your post rests on uncharitably interpreting what he means by absolute rights. Your post itself is a demonstration that the right to privacy is not absolute - if the criteria you describe are met, a wiretap can be permitted. He was talking about the fundamental question of whether or not a state has the right to set and apply those criteria (at least, within reasonable limits) within its borders.</text><parent_chain><item><author>bmelton</author><text>&amp;gt; No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don&amp;#x27;t have it.&lt;p&gt;I know nothing of Brazilian law, but in America, criminals have rights, including the right to privacy.  Convicted criminals and convicted felons do not, but that is an entirely different category, and your wording seems woefully imprecise.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? I don&amp;#x27;t.&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Alleged&lt;/i&gt; pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the full panoply of rights available to them as anyone else until such time as enough supporting evidence may be provided that the police can say that a) a crime has been committed, b) the alleged had the means to have committed the crime, c) the alleged had the motive to have committed the crime, d) the alleged had the opportunity to have committed the crime, and often e) the alleged is very likely to have committed the crime.&lt;p&gt;Only after THAT hurdle is cleared may the rights of the alleged criminal be intruded upon by the state, and without a grand jury, even those intrusions must be minimally invasive.&lt;p&gt;At least in America, a judge cannot issue a warrant for the wiretaps you described on the mere accusation that &amp;quot;so and so is a {pedophile,terrorist,drug dealer}.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>pqdbr</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m a judge in Brazil. Even tough I&amp;#x27;d pray to not be the one that had to give such an impopular order (affecting more then 100 million Brazilians - WhatsApp is really a hit here), we have laws in this country and we must prosecute criminals.&lt;p&gt;Mark&amp;#x27;s talk about privacy is, in my opinion, totally misplaced. No right is absolute, and that includes the right to privacy. Criminals, for example, simply don&amp;#x27;t have it. This is not me saying; this is our Constitution saying it (and the Constitution of every Western country that I know).&lt;p&gt;We are biased to see all measures against privacy with bad eyes, specially after Snowden. But that&amp;#x27;s because you are good people and see the matter with those eyes, not with the eyes of a criminal. Do you guys think that pedophiles, terrorists and drug dealers have the right to privacy ? I don&amp;#x27;t.&lt;p&gt;Also, what the NSA was (is?) doing is a complete absurd, with no judicial oversight, mass collecting everything they can get in secrecy. This has nothing to do with what we have here. In Brazil, only a judge can authorize someone to be wiretapped, it can only be done in criminal cases with jail time (no civil cases). Also, the judge must specify a single phone number or single e-mail account and the decision must be reviewed every 15 days, otherwise it expires. Also, there&amp;#x27;s a national database of wiretaps that every judge must feed by the end of the month, specifying how many wiretaps there are currently running.&lt;p&gt;WhatsApp and Facebook are not, by any means, above the law. If they want to provide a communication service here, the law is clear that they must abide by judicial orders that allow wiretapping in very specific cases.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Telegram gains 1M users after Whatsapp ban</title><url>http://thephonesgsm.blogspot.com/2015/12/telegram-gains-1-million-users-after.html</url></story>