4 ms·
It's my opinion that there never should have been a loophole and that the 1970s SCOTUS cases ruled incorrectly about our expectations of privacy for the "third-
by deftturtle 7y ago
It's my opinion that there never should have been a loophole and that the 1970s SCOTUS cases ruled incorrectly about our expectations of privacy for the "third-party doctrine." So this law, in my view, simply restores the 4th amendment protections guaranteed by the US constitution. I'm glad they did it, but as noted in the article, Chief Justice Roberts had to take more complicated positions for Carpenter vs United States, a recent case about cell phone surveillance.
He said cell phone location information "does not fit neatly under existing precedents," but I think the court should just re-evaluate the 1970s cases and come to a place of consistent reasoning about our data, so everything can fit neatly under the protection of the 4th amendment. When we use products or buy things, we expect our data to be private. I don't expect my banker to give away my personal financial information. Nor do I expect my cell phone carrier to share my call history. We do have an expectation of privacy, and the 1970s rulings are hugely flawed, especially in light of today's digital world.
- thfuran 7y agoYeah, the third-party doctrine is absolutely disastrous in the modern era.
- duxup 7y agoYeah we've passed the point where there is so much third party involvement / data that the standard read strictly pretty much eliminates the 4th amendment. ... any privacy you might hope to have. As an individual the only option is to withdraw from society as a whole and become a mountain man, that seems unreasonable.