3 ms·
In 2019, when we have huge databases that we can search quickly, the Third-Party doctrine no longer fits/works. We share vast amounts of very private informatio
by annoyingnoob 7y ago
In 2019, when we have huge databases that we can search quickly, the Third-Party doctrine no longer fits/works. We share vast amounts of very private information with third parties, it goes way beyond the meta-data of a PSTN phone call.
There is a big difference between asking for the call records of particular phone numbers and searching an entire database for whatever you want. With phone records you are asking for specific details, details that could provide direct evidence of a crime, the database has a perfect match for the search and that is known ahead of time. With DNA DB searches you are fishing for potential links, at least for now the DB isn't likely to have a perfect match and that is known ahead of time. Everyone in that DNA DB becomes suspect. I should not need DNA evidence to clear my name every time someone commits a crime.
- deogeo 7y agoThe third party doctrine was always a disgusting mess. Sharing my information with entity A does not even remotely imply I'm okay with sharing it with B, and even less that A may be compelled to reveal my information against my and their desire. So often we hear that "corporations are people" - so can people be compelled to inform on others, without a warrant? They're a third party, after all!
- Ogopogostick 7y agoYour comment looks like it's getting downvotes but the idea seems worth considering. I almost never hear corporate personhood brought up in good faith, it's usually just a rhetorical device these days, but it's worth remembering that the general idea behind it is that Corporations are just organized groups of people and therefore they should (should in the view of the relevant laws) not lose protections (compared to the individuals that comprise the group) simply for acting in a coordinated fashion.