4 ms·

That is just not how it works. The Constitution was written in the 18th century, so taking it literally is not a viable strategy. Furthermore, all language has

by wrs 8y ago

That is just not how it works. The Constitution was written in the 18th century, so taking it literally is not a viable strategy. Furthermore, all language has to be interpreted into meaning, just as you are doing with your oversimplified literal interpretation. Because it says "houses" not "apartments", would you say the police are free to search apartments without a warrant? How about hotel rooms? And how the heck can you interpret the word "unreasonable" literally? By your interpretation, because the phone companies' wires and the voltages thereon are not yours, wiretaps have nothing to do with the fourth amendment. If I place a GPS tracker on your car, that's not "yours" so none of its data is "yours", and I didn't literally search or seize your car, so I'm in the clear. And so on and so on.

rayiner 8y ago
There is a difference between interpreting the language literally and adhering to clear textual limitations. Reading “houses” to include hotel rooms and condos and trailers is an act of interpretation. So is reading “papers” to include digital data. Reading “their ... papers” to include “papers containing information about them” is not an act of interpretation, it’s rewriting the text. It’s not like the defintion of “their” as a word denoting possesson or ownership has changed since the 18th century. And it’s not like third party data was an unknown concept in the 18th century. It was an age of commerce, with merchants and bankers keeping extensive records about the dealings of third parties. As to wire taps—the Supreme Court decided it right the first time when it found in Olmstead that a wire tap was not a fourth amendment search. The contrary decision in Smith was based on this expansive “reasonable expectation of privacy” articulation which has no basis in the Constitution. GPS trackers are a different story. There, the government is treapassing on your char (your chattel property) to conduct a search.
- wrs 8y ago
  The word “trespassing” doesn’t occur in the fourth amendment, so your last paragraph is “rewriting the text”. Your car was neither searched nor seized by sticking a tracker to it. Unless you mean to reinterpret “search” to mean “know the location of”, which is certainly not the plain-English meaning of that word.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    No, it’s interpreting “search” to mean “conduct a physical trespass on some property in order to track its wherabouts.” I think it’s at least debatably within the scope of the word “search.” Interpreting the word “their,” meanwhile, to encompass all third-party data pertaining to “them,” does a lot more violence to the English language.
- Retric 8y ago
  You are arguing based on outcomes you like not a clearly separated limitations. GPS trackers don’t provide information that’s unavailable to high altitude drones/aircraft/somone following the car. Their advantage is how cheap they are not that they provide non public information. Further privacy is never directly mentioned. So, a pure textual reading suggests it’s not protected rather than say the inconvenience of somone searching your stuff.
  - emayljames 8y ago
    GPS trackers would have to be attached to your property, without permission. Drones etc. would be in a public space, a clear difference. What you say on the last line implies that all of the US' flawed constitution should be taken word for word, and nothing else! In that case, you should be able to have nuke's; as you have "the right to bear arms". Cognitive dissonance is what seems to be the problem with your take.
    - Retric 8y ago
      ‘Attached to your property without permission.’ Which is not prevented by the constitution. Trackers can be ‘attached’ while in a public space with magnetic clamps that don’t harm the car or need it be inside it. I can clearly leave a brick by your suitcase in the public space so it’s a privacy argument not a private property argument. “nuke's“ Arms did not nessisarily include personal cannons which where available back then. (It has been interpreted this way though.) So, that’s arguably a distinction already in the constitution. But again if you want to take a more expansive reading that’s reasonable, you simply can’t defend both interpretations. So, if you want reading A that also supports personal nuclear weapons then that’s included in reading A despite the unwanted side effects.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        > Trackers can be ‘attached’ while in a public space with magnetic clamps that don’t harm the car or need it be inside it. I can clearly leave a brick by your suitcase in the public space so it’s a privacy argument not a private property argumennt Attaching a brick to someone’s suitcase with a magnetic clamp would be a trespass to chattels (which can result from any intentional physical contact, even if it does not damage the property). You can’t go around attaching things to other peoples’ property.

by wrs 8y ago

rayiner 8y ago

There is a difference between interpreting the language literally and adhering to clear textual limitations. Reading “houses” to include hotel rooms and condos and trailers is an act of interpretation. So is reading “papers” to include digital data. Reading “their ... papers” to include “papers containing information about them” is not an act of interpretation, it’s rewriting the text. It’s not like the defintion of “their” as a word denoting possesson or ownership has changed since the 18th century. And it’s not like third party data was an unknown concept in the 18th century. It was an age of commerce, with merchants and bankers keeping extensive records about the dealings of third parties. As to wire taps—the Supreme Court decided it right the first time when it found in Olmstead that a wire tap was not a fourth amendment search. The contrary decision in Smith was based on this expansive “reasonable expectation of privacy” articulation which has no basis in the Constitution. GPS trackers are a different story. There, the government is treapassing on your char (your chattel property) to conduct a search.

wrs 8y ago
The word “trespassing” doesn’t occur in the fourth amendment, so your last paragraph is “rewriting the text”. Your car was neither searched nor seized by sticking a tracker to it. Unless you mean to reinterpret “search” to mean “know the location of”, which is certainly not the plain-English meaning of that word.
- rayiner 8y ago
  No, it’s interpreting “search” to mean “conduct a physical trespass on some property in order to track its wherabouts.” I think it’s at least debatably within the scope of the word “search.” Interpreting the word “their,” meanwhile, to encompass all third-party data pertaining to “them,” does a lot more violence to the English language.
Retric 8y ago
You are arguing based on outcomes you like not a clearly separated limitations. GPS trackers don’t provide information that’s unavailable to high altitude drones/aircraft/somone following the car. Their advantage is how cheap they are not that they provide non public information. Further privacy is never directly mentioned. So, a pure textual reading suggests it’s not protected rather than say the inconvenience of somone searching your stuff.
- emayljames 8y ago
  GPS trackers would have to be attached to your property, without permission. Drones etc. would be in a public space, a clear difference. What you say on the last line implies that all of the US' flawed constitution should be taken word for word, and nothing else! In that case, you should be able to have nuke's; as you have "the right to bear arms". Cognitive dissonance is what seems to be the problem with your take.
  - Retric 8y ago
    ‘Attached to your property without permission.’ Which is not prevented by the constitution. Trackers can be ‘attached’ while in a public space with magnetic clamps that don’t harm the car or need it be inside it. I can clearly leave a brick by your suitcase in the public space so it’s a privacy argument not a private property argument. “nuke's“ Arms did not nessisarily include personal cannons which where available back then. (It has been interpreted this way though.) So, that’s arguably a distinction already in the constitution. But again if you want to take a more expansive reading that’s reasonable, you simply can’t defend both interpretations. So, if you want reading A that also supports personal nuclear weapons then that’s included in reading A despite the unwanted side effects.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > Trackers can be ‘attached’ while in a public space with magnetic clamps that don’t harm the car or need it be inside it. I can clearly leave a brick by your suitcase in the public space so it’s a privacy argument not a private property argumennt Attaching a brick to someone’s suitcase with a magnetic clamp would be a trespass to chattels (which can result from any intentional physical contact, even if it does not damage the property). You can’t go around attaching things to other peoples’ property.