4 ms·

In 2012, in a concurring opinion on a case involving warrantless GPS tracking, justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote: "More fundamentally, it may be necessary to recon

In 2012, in a concurring opinion on a case involving warrantless GPS tracking, justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote: "More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks." Just wondering when we're actually going to reconsider that premise and its legal cognates.

Rooster61 7y ago
I hate getting political, but this is one of Andrew Yang's platform staples and is immediately relevant to your question. Look up his ideas about Data as a Right.
- CWuestefeld 7y ago
  Statutory protection would be an improvement, but it would be far better to have this recognized at the Constitutional level, which Yang can't really do.
- j8014 7y ago
  If it is to be political, I would rather target the legislative branch who can actually do something about this. It doesn't make sense to worry about the promises of a politician trying to get elected into the executive branch.
  - longerthoughts 7y ago
    I don't think Andrew Yang has any expectation of actually becoming the Democratic candidate, let alone getting elected. Seems like he's just trying to bring new ideas to the debate stage because candidates actually trying to get elected won't risk straying too far from familiar ideas.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    "I would rather target the legislative branch who can actually do something about this. It doesn't make sense to worry about the promises of a politician trying to get elected into the executive branch." Presidents have a major influence on what lawmakers do. First, they're the ostensible leader of their party, and to the extent they actually can and do lead, they can influence the rest of the party, including the legislature. Second, they can also greatly influence the relationship with the opposition party, as has been made eminently clear from the polarizing effect that Obama, Bush Jr, and Trump had on their opposition. Third, they have one of the world's biggest megaphones that they can use to push for their agenda. Witness the galvanizing effect of Kennedy's call for a space race or the Peace Corps. Fourth, they have veto power over legislation. While legislation can still pass over a Presidential veto, it has to have a lot more support in Congress, which means that controversial reforms will have a much harder time passing. Fifth, they can sign executive orders, which (in lieu of legislation) can also have a great effect.
marcoperaza 7y ago
The Court already reconsidered the third-party doctrine in Carpenter v. United States last year and ruled that accessing extensive cell site location records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 7y ago
“Reasonable expectation of privacy” appears nowhere in the constitution. So you’re talking about adding more gloss on what is already a gloss.
- foxyv 7y ago
  While not explicitly mentioned, the right to privacy is guaranteed by the constitution in several ways. "Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Douglas wrote, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
magduf 7y ago
>Just wondering when we're actually going to reconsider that premise and its legal cognates. We're not. It's very simple: you're talking about something like the EU's GPDR. We can't do that, because the EU did it, and since we're America and we're Exceptional, we can't ever copy anything that someone else does. So it'll never happen here.

Rooster61 7y ago

I hate getting political, but this is one of Andrew Yang's platform staples and is immediately relevant to your question. Look up his ideas about Data as a Right.

CWuestefeld 7y ago
Statutory protection would be an improvement, but it would be far better to have this recognized at the Constitutional level, which Yang can't really do.
j8014 7y ago
If it is to be political, I would rather target the legislative branch who can actually do something about this. It doesn't make sense to worry about the promises of a politician trying to get elected into the executive branch.
- longerthoughts 7y ago
  I don't think Andrew Yang has any expectation of actually becoming the Democratic candidate, let alone getting elected. Seems like he's just trying to bring new ideas to the debate stage because candidates actually trying to get elected won't risk straying too far from familiar ideas.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "I would rather target the legislative branch who can actually do something about this. It doesn't make sense to worry about the promises of a politician trying to get elected into the executive branch." Presidents have a major influence on what lawmakers do. First, they're the ostensible leader of their party, and to the extent they actually can and do lead, they can influence the rest of the party, including the legislature. Second, they can also greatly influence the relationship with the opposition party, as has been made eminently clear from the polarizing effect that Obama, Bush Jr, and Trump had on their opposition. Third, they have one of the world's biggest megaphones that they can use to push for their agenda. Witness the galvanizing effect of Kennedy's call for a space race or the Peace Corps. Fourth, they have veto power over legislation. While legislation can still pass over a Presidential veto, it has to have a lot more support in Congress, which means that controversial reforms will have a much harder time passing. Fifth, they can sign executive orders, which (in lieu of legislation) can also have a great effect.

marcoperaza 7y ago

The Court already reconsidered the third-party doctrine in Carpenter v. United States last year and ruled that accessing extensive cell site location records without a warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 7y ago

“Reasonable expectation of privacy” appears nowhere in the constitution. So you’re talking about adding more gloss on what is already a gloss.

foxyv 7y ago
While not explicitly mentioned, the right to privacy is guaranteed by the constitution in several ways. "Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Douglas wrote, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

magduf 7y ago

>Just wondering when we're actually going to reconsider that premise and its legal cognates. We're not. It's very simple: you're talking about something like the EU's GPDR. We can't do that, because the EU did it, and since we're America and we're Exceptional, we can't ever copy anything that someone else does. So it'll never happen here.