+0.26 Tenth Circuit: 4th Amendment Doesn't Support Broad Search of Protesters' Devices (www.eff.org S:0.00 )
634 points by hn_acker 2 days ago | 110 comments on HN | Moderate positive Editorial · v3.7 · 2026-03-01 13:36:19 0
Summary Privacy & Protest Advocates
This EFF Deeplinks blog article reports on and celebrates a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision limiting broad police searches of protesters' digital devices and data. The content strongly advocates for rights to privacy (Article 12/17), free speech (Article 19), and peaceful assembly (Article 20) within the context of U.S. constitutional law. The overall evaluation is positive, reflecting the article's clear advocacy stance.
Article Heatmap
Preamble: 0.00 — Preamble P Article 1: +0.48 — Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood 1 Article 2: 0.00 — Non-Discrimination 2 Article 3: +0.10 — Life, Liberty, Security 3 Article 4: ND — No Slavery Article 4: No Data — No Slavery 4 Article 5: ND — No Torture Article 5: No Data — No Torture 5 Article 6: +0.10 — Legal Personhood 6 Article 7: +0.10 — Equality Before Law 7 Article 8: +0.10 — Right to Remedy 8 Article 9: ND — No Arbitrary Detention Article 9: No Data — No Arbitrary Detention 9 Article 10: +0.10 — Fair Hearing 10 Article 11: ND — Presumption of Innocence Article 11: No Data — Presumption of Innocence 11 Article 12: +0.59 — Privacy 12 Article 13: +0.30 — Freedom of Movement 13 Article 14: ND — Asylum Article 14: No Data — Asylum 14 Article 15: ND — Nationality Article 15: No Data — Nationality 15 Article 16: ND — Marriage & Family Article 16: No Data — Marriage & Family 16 Article 17: +0.59 — Property 17 Article 18: +0.40 — Freedom of Thought 18 Article 19: +1.00 — Freedom of Expression 19 Article 20: +0.98 — Assembly & Association 20 Article 21: +0.20 — Political Participation 21 Article 22: ND — Social Security Article 22: No Data — Social Security 22 Article 23: ND — Work & Equal Pay Article 23: No Data — Work & Equal Pay 23 Article 24: ND — Rest & Leisure Article 24: No Data — Rest & Leisure 24 Article 25: ND — Standard of Living Article 25: No Data — Standard of Living 25 Article 26: +0.25 — Education 26 Article 27: +0.20 — Cultural Participation 27 Article 28: +0.20 — Social & International Order 28 Article 29: +0.15 — Duties to Community 29 Article 30: ND — No Destruction of Rights Article 30: No Data — No Destruction of Rights 30
Negative Neutral Positive No Data
Aggregates
Editorial Mean +0.26 Structural Mean 0.00
Weighted Mean +0.42 Unweighted Mean +0.31
Max +1.00 Article 19 Min 0.00 Preamble
Signal 19 No Data 12
Volatility 0.29 (High)
Negative 0 Channels E: 0.6 S: 0.4
SETL ℹ +0.70 Editorial-dominant
FW Ratio ℹ 53% 24 facts · 21 inferences
Evidence 25% coverage ℹ
4H 2M 13L 12 ND
Theme Radar
Foundation Security Legal Privacy & Movement Personal Expression Economic & Social Cultural Order & Duties Foundation: 0.16 (3 articles) Security: 0.10 (1 articles) Legal: 0.10 (4 articles) Privacy & Movement: 0.44 (2 articles) Personal: 0.49 (2 articles) Expression: 0.73 (3 articles) Economic & Social: 0.00 (0 articles) Cultural: 0.23 (2 articles) Order & Duties: 0.17 (2 articles)
HN Discussion 9 top-level · 18 replies
hn_acker 2026-02-27 15:09 UTC link
The original title is:

> Victory! Tenth Circuit Finds Fourth Amendment Doesn’t Support Broad Search of Protesters’ Devices and Digital Data

mothballed 2026-02-27 15:32 UTC link
It's an awesome victory. But until the penalty for violating rights under color of law is something real (like serious jail + restitution, barred from further public employment, etc) they will keep doing it.
jmward01 2026-02-27 15:45 UTC link
I think the top (tech) stories of the decade are likely: Privacy, AI and the energy transition.

I hope that as a society we are starting to learn, and protect, the value of, and right to, privacy.

JohnTHaller 2026-02-27 16:08 UTC link
The Republican administration will ignore this court order as well
fusslo 2026-02-27 16:25 UTC link
> The warrants included a search through all of her photos, videos, emails, text messages, and location data over a two-month period, as well as a time-unlimited search for 26 keywords, including words as broad as “bike,” “assault,” “celebration,” and “right,” that allowed police to comb through years of Armendariz’s private and sensitive data—all supposedly to look for evidence related to the alleged simple assault.

That's an insane overreaction and overreach. There's some quotes from officers during the protests that are particularly troubling, too.

The article links directly to the ruling: https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/0101...

I wonder how the Sargent and Judge who approved these searches feel. If they take their jobs seriously, I do hope that they are more critical of search warrant applications in the future.

ck2 2026-02-27 17:59 UTC link
"constitution-free zone"

a phrase that should be impossible but due to wild corruption of the people who write law, it does

all of Florida, all of Maine are in a "ha what constitution" zone

https://www.aclumaine.org/know-your-rights/100-mile-border-z...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/bill-rights-border-fou...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception

kevin_thibedeau 2026-02-27 18:42 UTC link
This is in Colorado Springs. What about the 100 mile border zone where the federal government pretends all rights are suspended?
jandrese 2026-02-27 19:48 UTC link
Is this going to be appealed up to the Supreme Court? They are usually pretty eager to expand the power of qualified immunity so this judgement may be short lived.
shevy-java 2026-02-27 20:37 UTC link
So, this is not surprising in that many courts have found a similar result. That is, the amendments usually protect the freedoms; sometimes regular folks extend it to far (e. g. government having zero possibilities which is also not true - see Audit the Audit channel and others). But one thing that is interesting is that these public departments, be it cops or some civil institution (but usually police departments), still try it. The idea is that many people will comply rather than dare resist. I think this is an institutionalized level of abuse. A common person should expect these government representatives to KNOW the law. The only reason these representatives still try to it to go to court, is because they WANT to break the law. This should become illegal. It wastes time, money, resources, by public representatives. The court system should change; the assumption that everyone is a legal body, SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WHEN A GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE KNOWS THAT SOMETHING IS AGAINST THE LAW and they still try to go for a court proceeding. That is deliberate abuse. Why do taxpayers have to pay for that?
patrickmay 2026-02-27 15:48 UTC link
A good start would be requiring police officers to carry individual liability insurance so that municipalities aren't paying for these lawsuits. If someone can't get insurance, they can no longer be a cop.
sneak 2026-02-27 15:50 UTC link
Germans have mass surveillance and they are perhaps the most privacy-conscious society in the world, because of their (relatively recent) authoritarian catastrophe.

I doubt anyone else will learn the lesson without something similar happening. Even some Germans are forgetting it already.

RajT88 2026-02-27 16:43 UTC link
Indeed. Who holds the government accountable to its own laws?
stebalien 2026-02-27 16:43 UTC link
The case was filed in 2023.
stronglikedan 2026-02-27 17:32 UTC link
> I wonder how the Sargent and Judge who approved these searches feel. If they take their jobs seriously, I do hope that they are more critical of search warrant applications in the future.

I guarantee they feel like they've been slighted because they take their jobs seriously, and from their perspective they should have been allowed to do what they did. Power corrupts the mind as much as the bank account.

radicaldreamer 2026-02-27 17:54 UTC link
If you think judges actually read warrants they sign, you’re very mistaken. Some judges are signing dozens of these a day in between other things on their docket.
jimt1234 2026-02-27 17:57 UTC link
Yes, an awesome victory. But I believe a tech solution is gonna be superior to any legal solution. Any data considered "private and sensitive" should be accessible only by the person who owns it. Full stop.
delfinom 2026-02-27 18:00 UTC link
Eh? They can, but it makes any cases based on evidence gathered from the declared unconstitutional searches basically dead and easily tossed in courts.
jfengel 2026-02-27 18:45 UTC link
They may be the top stories, but they have never appeared on any list of voters' top concerns. It's always crime, jobs, the economy, inflation, and health care.

People can say whatever they want to journalists, but they say different things to the politicians. Standing up for privacy does not get you elected and so we will continue to get anti-privacy laws and Attorneys General who won't enforce what we do have.

The best you can hope for is a judge deciding how they want the Constitution to read, and that's far from the slam dunk you'd expect.

antonvs 2026-02-27 18:50 UTC link
The current government believes in some sort of transitive property of 100 mile border zones. Mathematics hasn't quite caught up with this yet.
SAI_Peregrinus 2026-02-27 18:59 UTC link
Denver International Airport has a customs zone (as all international airports do), and is only 86 miles from Colorado Springs. AFAIK they've never explicitly restricted their policy to land & sea borders.
onlyrealcuzzo 2026-02-27 19:26 UTC link
With enough data, you could appear guilty of almost anything.
pklausler 2026-02-27 19:52 UTC link
Having lived (or maybe more accurately "resided") in the Springs for a few years, this story didn't surprise me at all.
dmitrygr 2026-02-27 20:02 UTC link
> I hope that as a society we are starting to learn, and protect, the value of, and right to, privacy.

I wish... but nope... see CA's and CO's requirements that OSs check ID

nickff 2026-02-27 20:32 UTC link
Interestingly (at least to me), the Tenth Circuit doesn't get appealed very often, and holds up fairly well on appeal, with a 50% reversal rate on appeals that are heard. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/02/which-circuit-had-the-h...
stvltvs 2026-02-27 22:08 UTC link
They probably won't because they don't want a nationwide precedent if it's upheld by SCOTUS.
UncleMeat 2026-02-27 22:13 UTC link
> I wonder how the Sargent and Judge who approved these searches feel. If they take their jobs seriously, I do hope that they are more critical of search warrant applications in the future.

Cops often hate the people. They see the people as their enemies. Retaliation is commonplace. Their goal is to arrest people, not actually achieve peace and justice. DAs and judges are often similar. We've seen cases where highly respected DAs have continued to prosecute people they knew were innocent.

This sort of thing is not a case of particular cops or DAs or judges not taking their job seriously. This is cops or DAs or judges thinking that they have a totally different job than they really should have.

runlevel1 2026-02-27 22:44 UTC link
If faith in the fairness and belief in the protection of the rule of law collapses much further, I suspect people will learn.

The question is whether they'll learn in time to do anything about it.
Editorial Channel
What the content says
+0.80
Article 19 Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.80
SETL
ND

Article is a strong advocacy piece celebrating a legal victory for protesters' rights, explicitly tied to free speech concerns.

+0.70
Article 12 Privacy
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.70
SETL
+0.70

Article directly advocates against arbitrary interference with privacy by celebrating a court decision limiting broad police searches of devices and data.

+0.70
Article 17 Property
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.70
SETL
+0.70

Article strongly advocates for the right to property in one's personal data, celebrating the court's protection against 'years of private and sensitive data' being combed through.

+0.70
Article 20 Assembly & Association
High Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.70
SETL
ND

Article is centered on defending the right to peaceful assembly through protest, celebrating legal protection for protesters.

+0.40
Article 18 Freedom of Thought
Medium Advocacy Framing
Editorial
+0.40
SETL
ND

Article advocates for freedom of thought by framing broad digital searches as a threat to private life.

+0.30
Article 13 Freedom of Movement
Medium Framing
Editorial
+0.30
SETL
ND

Article implicitly supports freedom of movement by defending protest activities and criticizing police animus.

+0.20
Article 1 Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND

Content implicitly supports dignity and equal rights by advocating for legal protection of protesters.

+0.20
Article 21 Political Participation
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND

Implicit support for participation in government through defense of protest as a political activity.

+0.20
Article 28 Social & International Order
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.20
SETL
ND

Article advocates for an international order where rights are protected by celebrating a court enforcing constitutional limits.

+0.10
Article 3 Life, Liberty, Security
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
ND

The legal protection of rights against police searches implies a support for security of person.

+0.10
Article 6 Legal Personhood
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
ND

Article implicitly supports equal protection by challenging police searches as violating 'clearly established' law.

+0.10
Article 7 Equality Before Law
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
ND

The article frames the court's denial of qualified immunity as a protection against arbitrary law enforcement.

+0.10
Article 8 Right to Remedy
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
ND

The article supports effective legal remedy by celebrating the court's reversal of the lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit.

+0.10
Article 10 Fair Hearing
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
ND

The article's support for a fair hearing is implied through its celebration of a favorable appellate court decision.

+0.10
Article 27 Cultural Participation
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
ND

Implicit support for cultural life through defense of protest as a form of social participation.

+0.10
Article 29 Duties to Community
Low Framing
Editorial
+0.10
SETL
ND

The article implicitly recognizes duties to the community by operating within a legal framework to challenge state overreach.

0.00
Preamble Preamble
Low
Editorial
0.00
SETL
ND

Content does not directly address foundational human rights principles.

0.00
Article 2 Non-Discrimination
Low
Editorial
0.00
SETL
ND

No direct discussion of discrimination based on the UDHR's enumerated categories.

0.00
Article 26 Education
Low
Editorial
0.00
SETL
ND

No relevant content.

ND
Article 4 No Slavery

No relevant content.

ND
Article 5 No Torture

No relevant content.

ND
Article 9 No Arbitrary Detention

No relevant content.

ND
Article 11 Presumption of Innocence

No relevant content.

ND
Article 14 Asylum

No relevant content.

ND
Article 15 Nationality

No relevant content.

ND
Article 16 Marriage & Family

No relevant content.

ND
Article 22 Social Security

No relevant content.

ND
Article 23 Work & Equal Pay

No relevant content.

ND
Article 24 Rest & Leisure

No relevant content.

ND
Article 25 Standard of Living

No relevant content.

ND
Article 30 No Destruction of Rights

No relevant content.
Structural Channel
What the site does
Element Modifier Affects Note
Legal & Terms
Privacy +0.25
Article 12 Article 17
Domain mission centers on privacy protection. EFF maintains Privacy Badger and Surveillance Self-Defense tools. Strong track record of privacy advocacy.
Terms of Service +0.05
Article 29
Standard TOS language; no significant human rights restrictions observed.
Identity & Mission
Mission +0.28
Article 1 Article 19 Article 20
EFF explicitly champions free speech, privacy, and digital rights. Mission statement aligned with UDHR values.
Editorial Code +0.12
Article 19
Editorial independence evident; no editorial policy discovered that undermines human rights discourse.
Ownership +0.08
Article 19 Article 25
Nonprofit 501(c)(3) structure; no profit-driven ownership conflicts observed.
Access & Distribution
Access Model +0.15
Article 19 Article 26
Content freely accessible; no paywall or access restrictions.
Ad/Tracking -0.08
Article 12 Article 17
Piwik analytics tracking present (anon-stats.eff.org); minor privacy concern despite anonymization claims.
Accessibility +0.10
Article 26 Article 27
Site appears functional and navigable; no apparent accessibility barriers detected.
0.00
Article 12 Privacy
High Advocacy Framing
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
+0.17
SETL
+0.70

Page uses Piwik analytics tracking (anon-stats.eff.org).

0.00
Article 17 Property
High Advocacy Framing
Structural
0.00
Context Modifier
+0.17
SETL
+0.70

Page uses Piwik analytics tracking (anon-stats.eff.org).

ND
Preamble Preamble
Low

No on-domain structural features specifically invoking the UDHR preamble.

ND
Article 1 Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood
Low Framing

No on-domain structural features related to equality.

ND
Article 2 Non-Discrimination
Low

No on-domain structural features addressing non-discrimination.

ND
Article 3 Life, Liberty, Security
Low Framing

No on-domain structural features related to physical security.

ND
Article 4 No Slavery

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 5 No Torture

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 6 Legal Personhood
Low Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 7 Equality Before Law
Low Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 8 Right to Remedy
Low Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 9 No Arbitrary Detention

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 10 Fair Hearing
Low Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 11 Presumption of Innocence

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 13 Freedom of Movement
Medium Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 14 Asylum

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 15 Nationality

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 16 Marriage & Family

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 18 Freedom of Thought
Medium Advocacy Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 19 Freedom of Expression
High Advocacy Framing

No on-domain structural features specific to this page.

ND
Article 20 Assembly & Association
High Advocacy Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 21 Political Participation
Low Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 22 Social Security

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 23 Work & Equal Pay

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 24 Rest & Leisure

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 25 Standard of Living

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 26 Education
Low

No on-domain structural features specific to this page.

ND
Article 27 Cultural Participation
Low Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 28 Social & International Order
Low Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 29 Duties to Community
Low Framing

No on-domain structural features.

ND
Article 30 No Destruction of Rights

No on-domain structural features.
Supplementary Signals
How this content communicates, beyond directional lean. Learn more
Epistemic Quality ℹ
How well-sourced and evidence-based is this content?
0.78 medium claims
Sources
0.8
Evidence
0.8
Uncertainty
0.6
Purpose
1.0
Propaganda Flags ℹ
2 manipulative rhetoric techniques found
2 techniques detected
loaded language
"Victory!" (headline); "big win for protesters’ rights"; "sweeping warrants"; "comb through years of... private and sensitive data"
flag waving
"privacy rights we all have in our devices and digital data"; "anyone concerned about police immunity for violating people’s constitutional rights"
Emotional Tone ℹ
Emotional character: positive/negative, intensity, authority
celebratory
Valence
+0.7
Arousal
0.6
Dominance
0.5
Transparency ℹ
Does the content identify its author and disclose interests?
0.33
✓ Author
More signals: context, framing & audience
Solution Orientation ℹ
Does this content offer solutions or only describe problems?
0.42 mixed
Reader Agency
0.3
Stakeholder Voice ℹ
Whose perspectives are represented in this content?
0.50 3 perspectives
Speaks: institutionindividuals
About: governmentcommunity
Temporal Framing ℹ
Is this content looking backward, at the present, or forward?
present immediate
Geographic Scope ℹ
What geographic area does this content cover?
national
United States, Colorado, Colorado Springs, Tenth Circuit
Complexity ℹ
How accessible is this content to a general audience?
moderate medium jargon general
Longitudinal 934 HN snapshots · 96 evals
+1 0 −1 HN
Audit Trail 116 entries
2026-03-02 00:02 dlq_auto_replay DLQ auto-replay: message 98044 re-enqueued - -
2026-03-01 13:51 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.90) - -
2026-03-01 13:51 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 13:46 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.90) - -
2026-03-01 13:46 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 13:37 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.70) - -
2026-03-01 13:37 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 13:36 eval_success Evaluated: Moderate positive (0.42) - -
2026-03-01 13:36 eval Evaluated by deepseek-v3.2: +0.42 (Moderate positive) 11,388 tokens
2026-03-01 13:04 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.90) - -
2026-03-01 13:04 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 12:57 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.70) - -
2026-03-01 12:57 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 12:23 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.90) - -
2026-03-01 12:23 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 12:16 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.70) - -
2026-03-01 12:16 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 11:49 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.90) - -
2026-03-01 11:49 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 11:36 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.70) - -
2026-03-01 11:36 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 10:51 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.90) - -
2026-03-01 10:51 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 10:31 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.70) - -
2026-03-01 10:31 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 10:04 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.90) - -
2026-03-01 10:04 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 09:58 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.90) - -
2026-03-01 09:58 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 09:48 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.70) - -
2026-03-01 09:48 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 09:43 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.70) - -
2026-03-01 09:43 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 09:16 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.90) - -
2026-03-01 09:16 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 09:04 eval_success Lite evaluated: Strong positive (0.70) - -
2026-03-01 09:04 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 08:32 rater_validation_fail Parse failure for model deepseek-v3.2: Error: Failed to parse OpenRouter JSON: SyntaxError: Expected ',' or ']' after array element in JSON at position 18161 (line 445 column 6). Extracted text starts with: { "schema_version": "3.7", " - -
2026-03-01 08:29 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 08:10 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 07:35 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 07:17 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 06:50 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 06:21 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 06:07 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 05:33 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 05:27 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 05:01 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 04:56 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 04:54 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 04:07 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 04:06 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 03:19 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 03:18 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 03:15 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 03:12 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 02:42 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 02:35 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 01:54 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 01:44 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 01:38 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 01:19 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 00:59 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 00:25 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-03-01 00:08 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-03-01 00:03 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 23:39 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 23:08 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 22:34 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 22:09 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 21:53 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 21:25 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 21:20 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 21:06 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 20:28 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 20:23 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 20:13 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 20:08 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 19:32 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 19:27 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 19:20 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 18:45 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 18:39 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 18:19 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 18:13 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 17:53 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 17:50 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 17:28 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 17:28 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 17:23 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 17:01 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 16:58 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 16:35 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 16:34 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 16:29 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 15:37 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 15:23 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 13:26 eval Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: +0.65 (Strong positive) -0.00
2026-02-28 13:23 eval Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: +0.65 (Strong positive) +0.23
2026-02-28 12:13 eval Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: +0.42 (Moderate positive) -0.22
2026-02-28 11:03 eval Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5-20251001: +0.65 (Strong positive)
2026-02-28 10:27 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 09:06 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 08:53 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.70 (Strong positive) -0.10
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 08:48 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 07:39 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) +0.10
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 05:18 eval Evaluated by claude-haiku-4-5: +0.68 (Strong positive)
2026-02-28 04:28 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.80 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 03:05 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.80 (Strong positive) -0.10
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 02:39 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 02:31 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.80 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 02:05 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.80 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 01:40 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.80 (Strong positive) 0.00
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 01:20 eval Evaluated by llama-3.3-70b-wai: +0.80 (Strong positive)
reasoning
ED advocacy for privacy rights
2026-02-28 01:04 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.90 (Strong positive) +0.10
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy
2026-02-28 00:59 eval Evaluated by llama-4-scout-wai: +0.80 (Strong positive)
reasoning
Editorial stance advocates for protesters' rights and privacy