2 ms·

I suppose that this is one of the rare cases where I must disagree with you. The constitution presupposed a very limited and disciplined Federal Government. T

by nickff 11y ago

I suppose that this is one of the rare cases where I must disagree with you. The constitution presupposed a very limited and disciplined Federal Government. The Federal Government which now exists is a wide-ranging administrative state that ignores the 10th Amendment, does not limit itself to enumerated powers, and employs discretionary enforcement of almost all of its regulations and many criminal laws. We should also remember that 3rd party doctrine was much less powerful in the era before the internet, and I cannot imagine that the founders would have endorsed it. In the face of this situation, it seems that no citizen would be foolish enough to ignore or deny even a request from any agent of the Federal Government.

Retric 11y ago
The federal government has a lot of odd rules, but it mostly sticks to them. "4. Can Postal Inspectors open mail if they feel it may contain something illegal? First-Class letters and parcels are protected against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be opened without a search warrant. If there is probable cause to believe the contents of a First-Class letter or parcel violate federal law, Postal Inspectors can obtain a search warrant to open the mailpiece. Other classes of mail do not contain private correspondence, and therefore may be opened without a warrant." Personally I would not have come up with that rule, but they follow it.
- nickff 11y ago
  Third-party doctrine is basically an end-run around the 4th Amendment in the internet age. The government cannot open your mail, but they can compel your e-mail provider to show them message contents at a reduced evidence burden without giving you a chance to protect your privacy.
  - Retric 11y ago
    In this comparison Email is a postcard which they can read. It's sent in plain test to any random router along the path. I wonder what if any protections medical records would have in terms of Third-party doctrine.
    - nickff 11y ago
      Anyone can read your letters if they open them, just as anyone can read your e-mails if they open them. Put another way, what do you expect me to do to protect my e-mail privacy? Am I required to do the same for my letter mail? Anyway, what you are saying might be relevant if the government were reading things being transmitted, but they're not. The government can use third party doctrine to open your inbox, or your cloud document accounts. The government is not intercepting e-mails like they might intercept a postcard; they are going in to your house to read the postcard after delivery.
      - Retric 11y ago
        There is nothing to open with a post card or email. If you don't encrypt email then every system must read the message to pass it along. Saying here any router can read this just fine, but I have some expectation of privacy is like suggesting people should not eves drop on your private CB radio conversation. As to reading email after the fact, they actually do intercept some email. The point is you can't call a CB radio conversation private after the fact.
rayiner 11y ago
Third party doctrine is irrelevant here. That says 4th amendment doesn't apply to stuff that isn't private because it has been shared with other people. Here we are talking about the FBI searching phones pursuant to a warrant. There is no way to spin that as a violation of the 4th amendment.
- meric 11y ago
  If they have a warrant, they can compel the suspect to unlock the device. Just like if the police has a warrant for your neighbour's house they can't compel you to do the breaking and entering. They can either get the suspect to open the door, or do it themselves. If they don't have a big enough ram or strong enough explosives, that's their problem, they can't compel you to lend your tools in the garage.
  - harryh 11y ago
    They can compel your neighbor's landlord to let them in though.

by nickff 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

The federal government has a lot of odd rules, but it mostly sticks to them. "4. Can Postal Inspectors open mail if they feel it may contain something illegal? First-Class letters and parcels are protected against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be opened without a search warrant. If there is probable cause to believe the contents of a First-Class letter or parcel violate federal law, Postal Inspectors can obtain a search warrant to open the mailpiece. Other classes of mail do not contain private correspondence, and therefore may be opened without a warrant." Personally I would not have come up with that rule, but they follow it.

nickff 11y ago
Third-party doctrine is basically an end-run around the 4th Amendment in the internet age. The government cannot open your mail, but they can compel your e-mail provider to show them message contents at a reduced evidence burden without giving you a chance to protect your privacy.
- Retric 11y ago
  In this comparison Email is a postcard which they can read. It's sent in plain test to any random router along the path. I wonder what if any protections medical records would have in terms of Third-party doctrine.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Anyone can read your letters if they open them, just as anyone can read your e-mails if they open them. Put another way, what do you expect me to do to protect my e-mail privacy? Am I required to do the same for my letter mail? Anyway, what you are saying might be relevant if the government were reading things being transmitted, but they're not. The government can use third party doctrine to open your inbox, or your cloud document accounts. The government is not intercepting e-mails like they might intercept a postcard; they are going in to your house to read the postcard after delivery.
    - Retric 11y ago
      There is nothing to open with a post card or email. If you don't encrypt email then every system must read the message to pass it along. Saying here any router can read this just fine, but I have some expectation of privacy is like suggesting people should not eves drop on your private CB radio conversation. As to reading email after the fact, they actually do intercept some email. The point is you can't call a CB radio conversation private after the fact.

rayiner 11y ago

Third party doctrine is irrelevant here. That says 4th amendment doesn't apply to stuff that isn't private because it has been shared with other people. Here we are talking about the FBI searching phones pursuant to a warrant. There is no way to spin that as a violation of the 4th amendment.

meric 11y ago
If they have a warrant, they can compel the suspect to unlock the device. Just like if the police has a warrant for your neighbour's house they can't compel you to do the breaking and entering. They can either get the suspect to open the door, or do it themselves. If they don't have a big enough ram or strong enough explosives, that's their problem, they can't compel you to lend your tools in the garage.
- harryh 11y ago
  They can compel your neighbor's landlord to let them in though.