5 ms·

What matters for purposes of 4th amendment jurisprudence is whether or not someone's expectation of privacy is reasonable, not whether or not their expectation

What matters for purposes of 4th amendment jurisprudence is whether or not someone's expectation of privacy is reasonable, not whether or not their expectation is fulfilled.

nxzero 10y ago
What constitutes probable cause for a search is relevant. The judge is arguing that all devices connected to the Internet are probably hacked and that as a result of the devices already being hacked, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
- apendleton 10y ago
  Who said anything about probably cause?
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Please clarify your question given probable cause is at the core of rights related to the forth.
    - apendleton 10y ago
      The 4th amendment and surrounding case law deals with two distinct issues (actually, more than two, but two relevant here): that some searches require warrants and some do not, and that for those that do require warrants, probably cause must be shown in order for said warrants to be obtained. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is the standard for deciding what is or is not a warrant-requiring search under the 4th amendment (see, e.g., Katz v. US). "Probable cause" is, given that something is a warrant-requiring search, the standard that needs to be met in order to get the warrant. The former is the one relevant to this discussion, not the latter.
- themartorana 10y ago
  Despite how many computers are hacked, I posit it's mathematically (factually) incorrect by a wide margin that the majority of Internet-connected devices are hacked. That alone, if it is the force behind the judge's opinion/ruling, makes it invalid, right? Facts? Or do they have no place in a modern US courtroom?
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Federal courts currently define probable cause to mean there is 51 percent likelihood that a crime was committed. As such, it is safe to say 51% of home computers connected to the Internet have been hacked; again, hacked, not hackable.
    - yellowapple 10y ago
      If it's "safe to say", then there should be some statistical evidence backing this up, no? At least in terms of viruses (the most common means of infiltrating a home computer), the percentage of households affected by any kind of computer virus is 40% according to http://www.statisticbrain.com/computer-virus-statistics/ http://www.statisticbrain.com/computer-virus-statistics/ (which in turn comes from data from Microsoft and Panda Security, among other places). This doesn't seem to define what "affected" means, however; it could mean that at least one computer was infected, or it could mean that they received a bit of spam from a non-household family member or friend whose computer was compromised.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
- themartorana 10y ago
  Edit: double post. Apologies.

What matters for purposes of 4th amendment jurisprudence is whether or not someone's expectation of privacy is reasonable, not whether or not their expectation is fulfilled.

nxzero 10y ago

What constitutes probable cause for a search is relevant. The judge is arguing that all devices connected to the Internet are probably hacked and that as a result of the devices already being hacked, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

apendleton 10y ago
Who said anything about probably cause?
- nxzero 10y ago
  Please clarify your question given probable cause is at the core of rights related to the forth.
  - apendleton 10y ago
    The 4th amendment and surrounding case law deals with two distinct issues (actually, more than two, but two relevant here): that some searches require warrants and some do not, and that for those that do require warrants, probably cause must be shown in order for said warrants to be obtained. "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is the standard for deciding what is or is not a warrant-requiring search under the 4th amendment (see, e.g., Katz v. US). "Probable cause" is, given that something is a warrant-requiring search, the standard that needs to be met in order to get the warrant. The former is the one relevant to this discussion, not the latter.
themartorana 10y ago
Despite how many computers are hacked, I posit it's mathematically (factually) incorrect by a wide margin that the majority of Internet-connected devices are hacked. That alone, if it is the force behind the judge's opinion/ruling, makes it invalid, right? Facts? Or do they have no place in a modern US courtroom?
- nxzero 10y ago
  Federal courts currently define probable cause to mean there is 51 percent likelihood that a crime was committed. As such, it is safe to say 51% of home computers connected to the Internet have been hacked; again, hacked, not hackable.
  - yellowapple 10y ago
    If it's "safe to say", then there should be some statistical evidence backing this up, no? At least in terms of viruses (the most common means of infiltrating a home computer), the percentage of households affected by any kind of computer virus is 40% according to http://www.statisticbrain.com/computer-virus-statistics/ http://www.statisticbrain.com/computer-virus-statistics/ (which in turn comes from data from Microsoft and Panda Security, among other places). This doesn't seem to define what "affected" means, however; it could mean that at least one computer was infected, or it could mean that they received a bit of spam from a non-household family member or friend whose computer was compromised.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
themartorana 10y ago
Edit: double post. Apologies.