5 ms·

No it doesn't. A private company has an obligation by contract to protect that information, even from the government. Our 4th amendment privacy rights apply to

by dgzl 8y ago

No it doesn't. A private company has an obligation by contract to protect that information, even from the government. Our 4th amendment privacy rights apply to businesses as well. Edit: I thought we were talking about America.

pjc50 8y ago
The answer for America, as far as I can determine from brief googling of a foreign legal system, is "no it doesn't": https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/huse-v-texas/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/huse-v-texas/ and https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2016/pd-0433-14.html https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals... ? > obligation by contract to protect that information, even from the government Contract never trumps statute anywhere.
- dgzl 8y ago
  > Contract never trumps statute anywhere. The 4th Amendment to privacy trumps statues everywhere (i.e. neither the feds nor state can just legislate their ability to read private company data). The contract between the customer and the org. should prevent the org. from just handing it over willingly.
  - cyphar 8y ago
    The 4th amendment having any legislative teeth is honestly a joke at this point. The NSA spying programs show the US government has very little interest in upholding the 4th amendment. Now, does this mean no company will take the government to court to protect their user data? Maybe not, but the list of companies that I can think of which will do that is vanishingly small. And let's not forget that the AT&T NSA spying case was dismissed by the appeals court, and was not accepted by review in the supreme court. Do you think the outcome would be any different next time?
    - dgzl 8y ago
      This is where I express my concern that the American government is operating outside of the Constitution and are guilty of violating our rights. Many constitutionists consider these three-letter agencies to be entirely unconstitutional.
      - cyphar 8y ago
        Sure, and I'm in favour of constitutional bills of rights (in Australia we have no strong protections of that kind, it's mostly ad-hoc and common law with the only really significant protection being the "on just terms" concept of compulsory acquisition). The problem is that if there is no way to effectively "petition a redress of grievances" (to borrow a phrase) about some constitutional violations, what is the point of that clause of the constitution? If you have legal protections of your rights, you must also have a court system that is willing to actually hold the government to account over violations of your rights -- and my impression of the US (as an outsider) is that this is not the case for 4th amendment violations.
        dgzl 8y ago
        Yeah, and I really wish I had a better solution than just excavating the cancerous parts of the government, but Americans aren't very rehearsed on the Constitution or their rights, and finding people who openly advocate for them in their entirety is rare. I think we need need term limits in Congress, so the same stale minds can't dominate forever. Also I think states should start flexing their 10th amendment rights to show the feds that they care about their rights (state legalization of drugs, prostitution for example). In general our court system is fairly good at upholding constitutional rights. It's not uncommon for a trial to be thrown out because some evidence was collected without a warrant, for example. However you're right that certain events question the viability of upholding our rights against a tyrannically government. That of course is why the 2nd amendment exists.

by dgzl 8y ago

pjc50 8y ago

The answer for America, as far as I can determine from brief googling of a foreign legal system, is "no it doesn't": https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/huse-v-texas/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/huse-v-texas/ and https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals/2016/pd-0433-14.html https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/court-of-criminal-appeals... ? > obligation by contract to protect that information, even from the government Contract never trumps statute anywhere.

dgzl 8y ago
> Contract never trumps statute anywhere. The 4th Amendment to privacy trumps statues everywhere (i.e. neither the feds nor state can just legislate their ability to read private company data). The contract between the customer and the org. should prevent the org. from just handing it over willingly.
- cyphar 8y ago
  The 4th amendment having any legislative teeth is honestly a joke at this point. The NSA spying programs show the US government has very little interest in upholding the 4th amendment. Now, does this mean no company will take the government to court to protect their user data? Maybe not, but the list of companies that I can think of which will do that is vanishingly small. And let's not forget that the AT&T NSA spying case was dismissed by the appeals court, and was not accepted by review in the supreme court. Do you think the outcome would be any different next time?
  - dgzl 8y ago
    This is where I express my concern that the American government is operating outside of the Constitution and are guilty of violating our rights. Many constitutionists consider these three-letter agencies to be entirely unconstitutional.
    - cyphar 8y ago
      Sure, and I'm in favour of constitutional bills of rights (in Australia we have no strong protections of that kind, it's mostly ad-hoc and common law with the only really significant protection being the "on just terms" concept of compulsory acquisition). The problem is that if there is no way to effectively "petition a redress of grievances" (to borrow a phrase) about some constitutional violations, what is the point of that clause of the constitution? If you have legal protections of your rights, you must also have a court system that is willing to actually hold the government to account over violations of your rights -- and my impression of the US (as an outsider) is that this is not the case for 4th amendment violations.
      - dgzl 8y ago
        Yeah, and I really wish I had a better solution than just excavating the cancerous parts of the government, but Americans aren't very rehearsed on the Constitution or their rights, and finding people who openly advocate for them in their entirety is rare. I think we need need term limits in Congress, so the same stale minds can't dominate forever. Also I think states should start flexing their 10th amendment rights to show the feds that they care about their rights (state legalization of drugs, prostitution for example). In general our court system is fairly good at upholding constitutional rights. It's not uncommon for a trial to be thrown out because some evidence was collected without a warrant, for example. However you're right that certain events question the viability of upholding our rights against a tyrannically government. That of course is why the 2nd amendment exists.