3 ms·
I wish they had gone further. In the modern age the concept of data hosted or stored with a “third party” is no longer useful in its entirety. It’s questionabl
by zaroth 8y ago
I wish they had gone further. In the modern age the concept of data hosted or stored with a “third party” is no longer useful in its entirety.
It’s questionable to me that where the bits are stored is even a relevant component of a multi-prong test, let alone an overriding factor.
The way the bits are accessed is certainly relevant but the location of the network attached hard-drive should have absolutely zero bearing.
This would have squared up well with the issue of offshore data warrants which got punted off the docket after new legislation was enacted to provide a compromise solution to that specific issue.
In any case, a great step in the right direction.
- anarazel 8y ago> I wish they had gone further. In the modern age the concept of data hosted or stored with a “third party” is no longer useful in its entirety. ISTM that that's much more a task for the legislative branch than SCOTUS. Now congress is also defunct to a significant degree, but there's some limits to what you can infer from the constitution... > The way the bits are accessed is certainly relevant but the location of the network attached hard-drive should have absolutely zero bearing. Hm, but that's not really the question, is it? Email contents, and likely online storage contents, already has a warrant requirement.