3 ms·
I do not follow. The fourth amendment establishes that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasona
by phillmv 10y ago
I do not follow.
The fourth amendment establishes that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"
Roe v Wade literally invented the legal right to privacy in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Right_to_privacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Right_to_privacy
- Bartweiss 10y agoThe Fourth and Roe are relevant, although I would argue that gay marriage and Miranda are essentially unrelated. In the US, "no government in the bedroom" privacy and non-self-incrimination don't really carry over into "don't read my mail" style privacy. They might bound prosecution, but not surveillance. More broadly, what I meant was that digital privacy, security, and ownership have been a consistently losing battle. The interpretation of how legal protections (the Fourth included) apply to computers has skewed towards state power in virtually every case, and victories on digital issues are almost all a result of technological activism rather than pure political work.