3 ms·

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 la

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.
  - Retric 8y ago
    I did not say attachment of the brick. But anyway, where and under which reading standards does the constitution prohibit this. Our legal system is not base on such meaningless distinctions. But, it’s to interpret things such that the rule is you (government agents) can place a tracker in the bed of a pickup truck as long as it’s not attached. But, cases are decided based on context not the form actions take. So this is a privacy issue not a private property issue.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      The brick/suitcase example doesn’t make any sense without attachment, so I read it into the hypo. But any physical contact inconsistent with ownership can be a trespass. You can’t go around putting bricks into peoples’ trucks either! Trespass isn’t expressly mentioned in the constitution, but it is one that is at least consistent with the text. The 4A lists several kinds of private property, and prohibits unreasonable “search” or “seizure” of that property. What is an “search” or “seizure” of private property? The structure of the text makes clear that it is a wrongful intrusion by a government agent onto property. What do we call wrongful intrusions onto private property? Generally, it’s trespass. “Privacy,” on the other hand, doesn’t fit the textual formula at all. The text says nothing about “privacy.” The contemporaneous debate said nothing about privacy. Saying that the fourth amendment is about “protecting privacy” totally abandons the textual nexus between a “search” and some private property. It is in fact an example of fallacious reasoning. It is the conclusion that because a “search” is one way to invade someone’s privacy, that anything that invades someone’s privacy is a “search.”

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.
- Retric 8y ago
  I did not say attachment of the brick. But anyway, where and under which reading standards does the constitution prohibit this. Our legal system is not base on such meaningless distinctions. But, it’s to interpret things such that the rule is you (government agents) can place a tracker in the bed of a pickup truck as long as it’s not attached. But, cases are decided based on context not the form actions take. So this is a privacy issue not a private property issue.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    The brick/suitcase example doesn’t make any sense without attachment, so I read it into the hypo. But any physical contact inconsistent with ownership can be a trespass. You can’t go around putting bricks into peoples’ trucks either! Trespass isn’t expressly mentioned in the constitution, but it is one that is at least consistent with the text. The 4A lists several kinds of private property, and prohibits unreasonable “search” or “seizure” of that property. What is an “search” or “seizure” of private property? The structure of the text makes clear that it is a wrongful intrusion by a government agent onto property. What do we call wrongful intrusions onto private property? Generally, it’s trespass. “Privacy,” on the other hand, doesn’t fit the textual formula at all. The text says nothing about “privacy.” The contemporaneous debate said nothing about privacy. Saying that the fourth amendment is about “protecting privacy” totally abandons the textual nexus between a “search” and some private property. It is in fact an example of fallacious reasoning. It is the conclusion that because a “search” is one way to invade someone’s privacy, that anything that invades someone’s privacy is a “search.”