The perfect catch-22. Carrying a smartphone? It will be seized, searched and used against you. Not carrying a smartphone? This fact itself is used as evidence against you. This is something straight outta NKVD playbook, Beria would be proud.
Anyone else get confused by the apparent contradiction between the title and the short description?
Here’s a excerpt from the article that accurately describes the AG’s (ridiculous) stance:
[…]according to Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, having a basic phone, or a phone with no data on it, or no phone at all in the year 2024, is evidence of criminal intent.
“How can you prove he was going to break the law?”
“Your honor he owned a cheap cell phone, doesn’t that sound like he was using a burner”
“Lmao fair enough. After all what possible use is there for a burner phone besides criminal activity, and what possible use is there for a cheap, prepaid cell phone except as a burner”
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
The perfect catch-22. Carrying a smartphone? It will be seized, searched and used against you. Not carrying a smartphone? This fact itself is used as evidence against you. This is something straight outta NKVD playbook, Beria would be proud.
Good ol’ damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
deleted by creator
Clearly the correct action is to own one and simply not use it
Anyone else get confused by the apparent contradiction between the title and the short description?
Here’s a excerpt from the article that accurately describes the AG’s (ridiculous) stance:
So the criminally insane are judges in the US. How original.
In short, his argument in court is that the lack of evidence is evidence of criminal intent.
Another good reason to stay away from the US in general and Georgia in particular.
No, more than likely that just makes you poor
Potato potahto
Yeah true
I hope this judge allowed the Asst AG to make a laughable ass of himself to later publicly shame him. But it’s the US and the South, so who knows?
“How can you prove he was going to break the law?”
“Your honor he owned a cheap cell phone, doesn’t that sound like he was using a burner”
“Lmao fair enough. After all what possible use is there for a burner phone besides criminal activity, and what possible use is there for a cheap, prepaid cell phone except as a burner”