Anthropic and Gov. Newsom forge deal allowing California government to use Claude at half price
South Korean tech giants commit over $550B to ease ‘ RAMageddon’
Monday morning traffic: Highway 9 closures, fire near Hwy 1, hit and run
This post is updated throughout the day to reflect the latest incidents. It was last updated at 11:32 a.m..
Here’s what’s happening on the roads this morning…
▼︎ new incidents ▼︎ long-term incidents
Road incidents as of 11:30 a.m. on June 29- There was a report of a fire with black smoke visible on the ocean side near Highway 1 and Wilder Ranch State Park in the Bonny Doon and Davenport area. The incident was reported today.
- A hit and run crash happened at the intersection of Soquel Ave. and Soquel Dr in the Eastside / Live Oak area. No one was hurt, but the reporting party’s car had damage to the rear bumper. The other car, a BMW, left before officers arrived. The incident was reported today.
- Highway 9 is facing closures in both directions at Pool Drive in San Lorenzo Valley because of bridge work. The closure will last until 5:59 a.m. on July 2.
- Highway 9 at Cascade Avenue in San Lorenzo Valley has one-way traffic due to ongoing work. This closure will last until August 31 at 7:01 a.m.
- A lane on westbound SR-152 at Clifford Drive/Ohlone Parkway in Watsonville/Pajaro is closed for asphalt paving. The closure will last until 5:59 a.m. on July 3.
- A lane on North Highway 9 at Two Bar Road in San Lorenzo Valley is closed for bridge work. The closure will last until July 2 at 6:01 a.m.
- Alternating lanes are closed on Highway 9 at Riverdale Park in San Lorenzo Valley because of bridge work. The closure will last until April 30 at 6:59 a.m.
- A lane on Highway 1 at Ocean Avenue in the Bonny Doon and Davenport area is closed for utility work. The closure is expected to end at 3:59 p.m. today.
- South Highway 1 is facing closures at Buena Vista Drive in Watsonville / Pajaro for drainage work. The closure is expected to end at 3:59 p.m. today.
- A lane is closed on eastbound and westbound SR-129 at Highway 1 in Watsonville and Pajaro for curb, gutter, and sidewalk work. The closure will end today at 2:59 p.m.
- A lane is closed on SR-129 at Salsipueda Creek Bridge in the Watsonville / Pajaro area for curb, gutter, and sidewalk work. The closure is expected to end at 2:59 p.m. today.
- A lane is closed on westbound SR-129 at the Walker St. railroad crossing in Watsonville/Pajaro because of utility work. The closure will end today at 3:30 p.m.
- Southbound Highway 17 in Scotts Valley is facing closures for asphalt paving. The closure will end at 6:01 a.m. today.
- One lane is closed on South Highway 9 at Graham Hill/Bennett St. in San Lorenzo Valley because of shoulder work. The closure will end at 3:59 p.m. today.
- Alternating lanes are closed on East and West SR-129 at Coolidge Avenue in Watsonville and Pajaro because of striping work. The closure is expected to end at 5:59 a.m. today.
- CHP helped with construction at 1100 Mm9 N Scr 11.00 in San Lorenzo Valley. The assistance was scheduled to last until 3:30 p.m. today.
- There is one-way traffic on SR-236 at Moon Drive in San Lorenzo Valley because of tree removal. This is expected to end at 1:30 p.m. today.
- A vehicle was parked with its wheels blocking the pedestrian and bike path at 23850 E Cliff Dr in Eastside / Live Oak, creating a traffic hazard. This was reported today.
These have been going on for a while, but are still worth keeping in mind.
- A section of Coolidge Drive between High Street and Hagar Road will be closed to northbound traffic from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each day from today through July 1 to allow County crews to do pavement work.
- Soquel Drive between State Park Drive and Trout Gulch Road in Aptos will be closed on July 4 from 9:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. for the annual Aptos 4th of July Parade.
- Playa Boulevard will be closed between Palma Avenue and Benito Avenue in La Selva Beach on July 4 from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for the annual La Selva Beach 4th of July Parade.
- Mill St. between Main St. and Highway 9 in Ben Lomond will be closed on July 4, August 1, September 5, and October 3 from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. each day for scheduled events or activities. Emergency and local driveway access will still be available.
- Pine St. (between Hwy 236 and Harmon St.) and Lomond St. (between Pine St. and Railroad Ave.) in Boulder Creek will be closed for the Boulder Creek 4th of July Parade.
Disclosure: Traffic incidents are partially generated by artificial intelligence. We are constantly working to improve the accuracy and quality of our AI-generated content. However, there may still be errors or inaccuracies. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us.
The post Monday morning traffic: Highway 9 closures, fire near Hwy 1, hit and run appeared first on Lookout Santa Cruz.
How the AI bubble could pop and take down the global economy, according to the BIS
MAGA Erupts as Even Amy Coney Barrett Rules Republicans Went Too Far
MAGA world is incensed after Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Comey Barrett sided with the liberal justices—and even wrote the majority opinion—rejecting the Trump administration’s attempt to gut mail-in voting.
The court on Monday ruled to uphold a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots to be counted up to five days after the election, so long as they were postmarked by Election Day. The decision effectively saves similar grace periods around the country, especially in big Democratic states. That was enough to set off Republicans.
“A shockingly wrong opinion,” wrote Republican Senator Eric Schmitt. “Justice Barrett joins with the liberal justices to hold that federal election law does not preempt states who allow late mail-in ballots to be counted. This is terrible for election integrity. Another reason we must pass the full SAVE American [sic] Act.”
“Remember Election Day?” said GOP Representative Abe Hamadeh. “This disastrous SCOTUS decision, authored by Justice Barrett, guarantees we’ll keep drifting away from it—as our sacred elections get bogged down by endless mail-in ballots and never-ending counts.”
Trump supporters outside of Congress made their discontent clear, as well.
“Barrett. AGAIN. WTF,” former Fox News host Megyn Kelly wrote.
“Amy Coney Barrett was a gigantic fucking disaster of a Supreme Court appointment. Absolutely horrible in the long run. She totally forgot who appointed her to the Court,” right-wing influencer Joey Mannarino said. “Scum of the earth.”
“Barrett is the biggest conservative judicial disaster since Souter,” conservative writer Hans Mahnke commented. “The difference is that few conservatives expected much from Souter whereas Barrett was supposed to be the future of the Court. The worst part is that she’ll be there pushing leftist policies for another 40 years.”
This isn’t the first time the Trump appointee has seemingly backstabbed the movement that put her in position to be nominated for the Supreme Court. Conservatives also raged against Barrett last year after she joined the court’s liberal justices in dissenting against a decision granting Trump emergency relief to use the “Alien Enemies Act” to deport immigrants at whim.
Arena, the AI leaderboard everyone uses, is now a $100M business
Trump Goes Berserk Over Supreme Court’s E. Jean Carroll Decision
President Donald Trump crashed out Monday after the Supreme Court wouldn’t let him off the hook for the $5 million he owes E. Jean Carroll.
In a tirade on Truth Social Monday, Trump lamented the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Trump’s appeal of a verdict finding him guilty of sexually abusing and then defaming Carroll.
“Surprisingly, the Supreme Court declined to ‘review’ a Fake Case brought against me by a woman I never met (Decades old celebrity photo line, standing with her husband, does not count!),” Trump wrote.
“This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for, and should never be allowed to happen to another President, or Candidate to be!” Trump continued.
Of course, the case has nothing to do with America, but about Trump’s specific actions. Carroll, a former writer, accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in 1996. When she spoke out publicly against him, he claimed the case was “a complete con job” and a “hoax and a lie.” In 2022, she sued him for both sexual abuse and defamation, seeking damages, and the jury agreed with Carroll that Trump was liable.
Trump had appealed the decision, claiming the case was tainted by the inclusion of “highly inflammatory” evidence—including testimony from two other women who claimed Trump assaulted them, and the infamous Access Hollywood tape.
Trump also railed against the state of New York for creating a temporary law that allowed adult sexual assault survivors in New York to file a civil case against an abuser, no matter when the assault took place, “in order to wrongfully ‘nab’” him.
“It was tailormade, and this Injustice cannot be allowed to stand!” he wrote on Monday.
Mageia 10 keeps the 32-bit Linux flame alive
RFK Jr.’s CDC doesn’t care if its policies kill
There’s really no better way to put it than that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants people who use drugs to die. Last Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention dropped new guidance on health programs at state, local, and tribal levels, demanding they agree to a list of “priorities” by July 1. One of those will lead us to abandon efforts we know can…
The Roberts Court Just Put Trump in Charge of Independent Agencies, Vastly Expanding His Powers
The Supreme Court on Monday gave the president the authority to remove the leadership of most agencies that Congress had set up to act independently of presidential control. The ruling in Trump v. Slaughter may seem technical, but it represents a radical change in how our American government has functioned since the 1930s and, in some cases, since the founding, by creating agencies that operate with independence from presidential control and the expediency of presidential politics. Rather than allow Congress to decide how much control the president can exercise over an agency that Congress creates, the Supreme Court has seized that power for itself. Starting today, nine justices will decide which agency heads can be fired by the president and which cannot.
Today’s decision overturns a 91-year-old precedent, called Humphrey’s Executor, in which a unanimous Supreme Court upheld Congress’ authority to give independent commissioners protection from presidential removal. In his majority decision, Chief Justice Roberts derides this critical precedent while downplaying the gravity of overturning it. “If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” Roberts stated in his 6-3 opinion joined by other GOP appointees. “Humphrey’s has for decades been a result in search of a rationale.”
“The one thing that does appear to be clear going forward is that chaos will follow.”
The decision stems from President Donald Trump’s illegal firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a President Joe Biden appointee to the Federal Trade Commission. At the onset of his second term, Trump began firing Democratic appointees to independent agencies in violation of federal law, which protected their removal except for sufficient cause. He removed Biden appointees at the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit System Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, among others. These agencies are designed to be insulated from immediate presidential control. They are run by a bipartisan board of commissioners who serve staggered terms. And unlike appointees to cabinet departments, the president cannot remove them over policy differences. The power to remove is the power to control. An impending firing can sway the decision-making of commissioners—and if it doesn’t, they can get the boot.
In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that chaos will ensue. “Today, the majority reshapes our Government,” she wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands.” It does this, she wrote, in the service of the majority’s “half-baked theory of executive power that is simultaneously all encompassing yet also subject to necessary but undefined exceptions. The one thing that does appear to be clear going forward is that chaos will follow.”
The Roberts Court had already chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor, and it was clear that in their quest to realize a so-called unitary executive with dangerous amounts of power and vanishing guardrails around him, it would use this case to knock down the precedent. Roberts does this with gusto. His opinion is a sweeping recitation of all the history he has mustered in his march toward a unitary executive, and relies on his own prior opinions inching toward this very moment—treating his decision as inevitable and right, rather than the result of his own political crusade. Legal historians have long complained that Roberts’ history is a house of cards. This opinion is “embarrassingly thin, full of historical errors and cherry-picked sources,” posted Boston University law professor Jed Schugerman, “reverse engineered from unitary ideology.”
The tricky task for the Republican-appointed majority, however, was how to exempt the Federal Reserve Board, an independent agency upon which rests the stability of the entire economy and which, under presidential control, could tank the markets and plunge the country into even more economic chaos. Indeed, the court in deciding this case while also deliberating whether the president can invent a bogus “cause” to remove a member of the Fed whom he doesn’t like in a blatant attempt to seize control of the agency. Roberts issued that opinion Monday as well, arguing that the Fed is different because of its allegedly unique history and therefore Trump cannot fire targeted governor Lisa Cook without following proper procedures. Roberts left to another day whether the charges against Cook are sufficient, but did reinforce his decision that the Fed’s independence should be maintained.
The solution to this problem—the desire to hand Trump almost unlimited firing power but not when it would cause brutal economic fallout—is to strip Congress of its power to decide when an agency it creates is independent and instead hand that policy determination to themselves. The decision sets up a new regime whereby the justices themselves decide when firing protections are constitutional based on whether an agency’s work falls “within the President’s ‘general administrative control'”—an amorphous standard that surely can be manipulated as the justices see fit. That allows the 6-3 majority today to allow Trump to fire commissioners at the FTC, but preserve Fed independence.
There are other agencies whose independent status and the removability of their commissioners are now uncertain. Congress could try to weigh in, but its decisions are now relegated to suggestions. Roberts’ decision oozes disdain for Congress and alleges that its attempt to insulate agencies from presidential control was an unconstitutional power grab. He cloaks the unitary executive theory as a democratic approach, making all government administration accountable to one man and, ultimately, the people who elect him, even though the Founders intended Congress to be the most democratic branch. The chief justice disagrees. “Placing the power to administer laws in officers who enjoy ‘freedom from Presidential oversight (and protection),'” Roberts writes, “often results only in an ‘increased subservience to congressional direction.'” He continued to accuse Congress of using Humphrey’s Executor to take “more power for itself.”
“The Court takes one of the oldest debates in American history and decides that the six Justices in the majority, alone, ought to be the ones to settle it for all time.”
But in Monday’s opinion, it is the court that hijacks Congress’ power for itself. Now, the justices will decide the fate of each agency’s independent status on a case-by-case basis. This is undoubtedly a question for Congress to decide, but the six justices seize that policy-making authority for themselves. As Sotomayor stated in her dissent, “The Court takes one of the oldest debates in American history and decides that the six Justices in the majority, alone, ought to be the ones to settle it for all time.”
Trump v. Slaughter follows the clear modus operandi of the Roberts Court: disempower Congress, give more power to the president to buck the laws, and leave the nine justices as the only people who can shut down the president’s actions. The most infamous example is the court’s grant of criminal immunity to the president. Just as presidential immunity breeds corruption and political weaponization, this one will likewise turbocharge Trump’s ability to reward allies and donors and punish political enemies at the expense of good governance.
From approving mergers and regulating Wall Street and Crypto to determining which toys are safe for babies, independent agencies play a critical role in regulating the economy, the environment, our jobs, and the objects we rely on every day. Handing these decisions to donors or weaponizing them for political gain will line some pockets but almost certainly harm the public.
The Roberts Court claims to be an originalist court, basing its constitutional rulings on the document’s original public meaning. But ever since the Roberts Court’s hard turn toward unitary executive theory—the idea that the president has unrestricted authority over the entire executive branch—and its movements against independent agencies, scholars have gone back to the archives to investigate the originalist bona fides of these related judicial trends. It turns out that there is little historical evidence for a unitary executive (and mountains of evidence against) and that there are many instances of independent agencies in the founding era and the 19th century. They are not an invention of the New Deal, even though that is the time in which they grew in number and significance—and is indeed the era this court seeks to erase from the law books.
In her dissent, Sotomayor recounts the history that the majority eschews, demonstrating how Roberts’ opinion relies more on discredited fictions than sound history. “From the start, the majority’s theory rested on shaky ground,” she wrote. “Over time, its arguments have grown weaker still, as historical evidence has undermined key pillars of its theory. Today, the Court faced a choice: plow ahead… Unfortunately, the Court repeats and expands upon several prior errors that require correction.”
The historical anomaly is not independent agencies or presidents with limited authority, as Roberts asserts. It’s this court and the Trump actions it blesses.
Here Are the Politicians Americans Actually Like
A new poll has revealed that Americans’ favorite politicians are also the ones that conservatives bellyache about the most.
A Strength In Numbers/Verasight poll published Monday asked Americans to rate a dozen contemporary political figures on a scale of zero through 100, with the bottom of the scale representing “coldness” and the top of the scale representing “warmth.” The winners, by and large, were Democrats.
Leading the popularity contest was former President Barack Obama, with an average rating of 54 on the reputation thermometer. Behind the 44th president was Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic Party at large, and Biden Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, in that order.
Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also polled high, earning a 42 and 41 rating, respectively.
Two Democrats fell towards the bottom of the poll: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who received a 36 rating, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who came in last in his party with a 30 rating.
Republicans generally fared much worse than Democrats. Among them, State Secretary Marco Rubio came in first with a 41 rating. Behind him was Vice President JD Vance and President Donald Trump, who each received an average rating of 38.
Elon Musk, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and ex-Fox News star Tucker Carlson fared even worse than the team in the White House, and scored less than 36 across the board.
Per our new polling out today, the most popular politicians in America are…
Barack Obama
Bernie Sanders
Zohran Mamdani
Pete Buttigieg
Jon Ossoff
& Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Trump is tied with Elon Musk and Hakeem Jeffries, Schumer and Carlson in lasthttps://t.co/vGWqUvS0Pk pic.twitter.com/9Zmb1SHxki
The poll follows a pivotal moment for the burgeoning Democratic Socialists of America, which saw two of its New York-area candidates win big in primaries across the state last week: Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez. Both of them, as well as Mamdani-endorsed Brad Lander, beat out candidates endorsed by Democratic leaders such as Jeffries and Schumer. Their success underscores a new chapter in left-wing politics in the U.S., and illustrates that candidates tied to Democratic leadership have lost their sway with traditionally Democrat voters.
Cursor now has a mobile app for guiding your coding agent on the go
Trump administration threatens 92 GW of new electricity supply with red tape
Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Attempt to Fire Fed’s Lisa Cook
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, dealing a setback to Trump’s campaign to take control of monetary policy. The court’s 5-4 decision preserves Cook’s job as she continues to fight her removal, but it is not the final word on Trump’s bid to fire her. The narrow decision almost guarantees that this same dispute will return to the high court soon.
The majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts expresses explicit support for Fed independence. As an independent bank regulator, the Fed is run by a board of presidentially appointed governors who serve 14 year terms and are only removable for cause. The Trump administration argued that it had cause and that the Supreme Court could not review its removal decision. But the majority found the government’s arguments at odds with an independent Fed.
“To accept any one of those arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference,” Roberts wrote.
The decision comes at a time when the future of Fed independence is in doubt. Trump’s pick for Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, is awaiting confirmation by the Senate. Keeping Cook in her seat steadies the ship, if only a little. The majority’s decision, however, is explicitly “narrow.” It requires that Cook be given proper notice of the cause of her removal and an opportunity to contest those charges. The decision does not lay out what that process looks like. And it saves for another day—which will almost certainly come soon—a court decision on whether Trump’s obviously pretextual allegations will be enough to remove Cook.
In a post on Truth Social Monday, Trump called the Cook ruling “strictly procedural” and pledged to “take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!”
In short, this is a loss for Trump at this stage—but it may not be a permanent one.
In its ruling, the court declined to define what for-cause protection requires in order for a firing to be valid. Indeed, it hints that rather than leave it up to the president, it may ultimately be the final arbiter of what constitutes cause on a case-by-case basis. “Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her…may a final decision be made…And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges,” Roberts wrote.
“To be clear, the ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts,” the chief justice added. “In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts.”
Here are those facts, as we know them.
Last August, the president posted a criminal referral against Cook on Truth Social, his social media platform, and demanded she resign. The accusation—created by Bill Pulte, Trump’s Federal Housing Finance Agency director—is that Cook claimed primary residency on two different mortgage applications. If this charge sounds familiar, it’s because it’s the same one Pulte cooked up against two other Democrats—and it has yet to win the day against any of the president’s targets because, at most, Pulte appears to have discovered clerical errors. Five days after Trump’s social media post, the president announced in another post that he was firing Cook.
Trump claimed that the mortgage document discrepancy dug up by a political lackey was sufficient cause to fire Cook, and that the courts couldn’t review his decision to boot her, anyway. In other words, Trump’s argument is that he can state any cause for removal he likes, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. It’s an obviously absurd argument because it renders the “for cause” removal restriction meaningless. Cook sued, and a district court judge blocked her removal, as did the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump turned to the Supreme Court, which agreed to decide whether Trump could temporarily remove Cook while her legal challenge to her firing moves forward.
The Supreme Court handed down its ruling Monday in conjunction with a related case—Trump v. Slaughter—in which the court gave Trump the power to remove the commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission and other formerly independent agencies. That decision follows a string of cases in which the court’s this conservative majority found that the president’s power over the executive branch trumped Congress’ attempt to insulate agencies from political pressure. During Trump’s second term, the court had already waved through firings of Democratic commissioners on the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission on its shadow docket.
Logically, it’s hard to reconcile the court’s Cook decision with its rulings in Slaughter and other cases allowing Trump to fire independent agency commissioners. But the Federal Reserve Board’s independence is a pillar of the United States’ economy, and the US’s dominant global position makes that independence critical to the world economy, as well. Allowing Trump to turn interest rates, loans, bailouts, and access to the US banking system into political weapons would fundamentally reshape the economy and our democratic order. The Fed, in other words, is too important for one man to control.
To get out of this bind, Roberts—who wrote both the Cook and Slaughter decisions—insists that the Fed is simply different. Roberts’ opinion cites a history of independent bank regulators going back to the country’s founding and finds this history is relevant in determining whether it should uphold Congress’ legislative choice to make the Fed independent. “We see no reason to leave the public in limbo, or to sow doubt as to the status of one of our Nation’s (and the world’s) most important financial institutions,” Roberts wrote. “We would not so quickly unsettle this ‘special arrangement sanctioned by history.’”
This entire adventure stems from the Roberts Court’s own crusade to empower the president and hinder regulations disliked by big industry. The GOP-appointed majority has pushed forward its view of a “unitary executive” who controls all aspects of the executive branch, creating a roadmap for Trump to turn federal agencies into political weapons. Today, the court blesses Trump’s attempts to take control of most of the regulatory work that Congress deemed should be independent. But, at least to an extent, the Fed will be insulated from the consequences of that crusade.
Thanks, GOP: Student borrowers face massive bills this week
Millions of student borrowers will see their bills significantly increase on July 1 as new regulations put in place by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans go into effect. On that day, the Trump administration’s Repayment Assistance Plan will go into effect, replacing the Saving on a Valuable Education plan put in place in 2023 under former President Joe Biden.
TIDAL cracks down on AI music by cutting off monetization
Gold member
A cartoon by Clay Jones. Related | Trump set to make another historic celebration all about himself…
Supreme Court Rules Fourth Amendment Covers Your Location Data
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals’ right to privacy when it comes to their phone location data.
The justices ruled 6–3 to send a Virginia bank robbery case back to the lower courts for review in light of its decision. In 2019, Okello Chatrie was convicted of robbing a credit union after police saw him using his phone in the security camera footage of the bank. They then used a “geofence warrant,” which compels tech companies to provide law enforcement with data from all devices at a specific place and time, to identify Chatrie.
Geofence warrants are regularly used, and let the government demand location data and records from anyone near a crime scene, without needing to identify an individual target.
Government lawyers argued to the court that Chatrie did not have a “reasonable expectation” of privacy, since he had willingly shared his location with Google.
But the Supreme Court rejected that argument. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion for the majority, and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts joined.
“A cell-phone user is not to be viewed as sharing private information with third parties—which then can be freely passed on to the government—just by doing the ordinary things cell-phone users do,” Kagan wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor concurred, writing, “even short-term monitoring” of a person’s physical movements can provide “a wealth of detail about [his] familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations.”
The ruling is a win for data privacy, and will make it harder for the federal government to access personal information stored in the cloud without getting a specific warrant.
FIVE NIGHTS AT FREDDY’s 3 In the Works with IT: CHAPTER 2 Writer
- Five Nights at Freddy’s 3 is happening with Gary Dauberman, the writer behind IT: Chapter 2, penning its script.
Five Nights at Freddy’s gave video game fans two box office smashes that brought Freddy and his friends to the big screen. So, it is not at all shocking that there’s a Five Nights at Freddy’s 3 in the works with writer Gary Dauberman on board. Dauberman is behind films like 2017’s IT and IT: Chapter 2 as well as The Nun.
Universal Pictures
According to The Hollywood Reporter, it is not clear if the previous film’s stars will return for this next installment. But it is pretty likely that we will see Mike and Abby again. And, with Vanessa being possessed by the Marionette and the suit with William’s body activating at the end of the second film, there’s more story to tell with them too. These films have come out in relatively rapid succession, with the first two being released in 2023 and 2025, respectively.
RELATED ARTICLE
FIVE NIGHTS AT FREDDY’s 2 Unleashes More Animatronic Horror in New TrailerSo it would not be shocking to see a late 2027 release for the Five Nights at Freddy’s 3 film. We don’t mind a two year schedule in a world where the next chapter of everything seems to take 84 years. (The exception is The Pitt, which comes out every year and absolutely rules.) We can’t wait to see what Freddy Fazebear, Bonnie, and those other creepy animatronics will get into next.
The post FIVE NIGHTS AT FREDDY’s 3 In the Works with IT: CHAPTER 2 Writer appeared first on Nerdist.