5 ms·

Well that's simply not true...

• AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Evidence? Counter-argument? Anything? Just a flat-out denial of a seemingly-true statement does nothing to advance the conversation. (Why do I call it a seemingly-true statement? Because if a local ISP, say, will answer questions from the police, without a warrant, then the police are likely to feel free to call the ISP and ask questions when they don't have a warrant. Human nature likes not having to do the extra work.)
  • dimino 10y ago
    I don't need evidence to question a claim, only to make a counter claim. I am questioning the claim that law enforcement doesn't need a warrant to legally view data about an individual or individuals collected by a 3rd party.
    • pdkl95 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
      • dimino 10y ago
        "the Court is cautiously developing new standards of Fourth Amendment protection, including a rejection of a strong third party doctrine." https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/ https://works.bepress.com/stephen_henderson/34/
        • pdkl95 10y ago
          US v Jones, which your link discusses, didn't rule on the 3rd-party doctrine, which is (unfortunately) still being used. Yes, Justice Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion, made a very good case for revisiting what "expectation of privacy" means and suggested that constitutional protections should extend into 3rd party data. Chief Justice Roberts made similar comments[1] in the court opinion for Riley v. CA. However, those cases addressed specific questions (placing a GPS tracking device, and searching a cellphone that was found upon arrest) and did not rule on the general use of the 3rd-party doctrine. I hope those cases are a sign of change in the court that will lead to broader rulings in the future, but that hasn't happened yet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of_the_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California#Opinion_of...
          • dimino 10y ago
            > But in the broader view, it is not merely one Justice who will not apply the third party doctrine in a strong form, and thus I have previously written the doctrine’s obituary.
    • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      First, "that's simply not true" is a counter claim. So now you need evidence. Second, yes, law enforcement needs a warrant to legally compel a company to provide them with information. But what if the company (or an individual within it) is willing to provide data without being served with a warrant? Unless taking the information is in violation of privacy laws, what's to keep a police officer from using that? (Call it an "informant" if you wish to equate it with similar non-electronic situations.)
      • dimino 10y ago
        I withdraw the counterclaim, then. I simply dispute the original claim. As for a company providing information without a warrant, recent case law is closing/has closed the door on a company's ability to do such a thing (not that they are, considering how many companies have stringent privacy agreements with their users).
        • AnimalMuppet 10y ago
          Let's separate this into a few different things. 1. If a company (or an individual) provide information to law enforcement on request, without a warrant, is that disclosure itself breaking the law? (Ignoring company policy and privacy statements here.) 2. If so, will the company be prosecuted for doing so? 3. Will the information be usable in court? When you say "recent case law is closing the door on a company's ability to do such a thing", it sounds like you're talking about #3 (but feel free to clarify if I'm wrong). But #1 is still a concern, because it can show the police where to try to do parallel construction.
          • dimino 10y ago
            I first want to finish dealing with the original claim and the focus of my actual comment.