5 ms·

The third party doctrine loophole is huge and not likely to be impacted very much by this, unfortunately. Here's a relevant talk from the National Constitution

The third party doctrine loophole is huge and not likely to be impacted very much by this, unfortunately. Here's a relevant talk from the National Constitution Center, if you want to hear some of the nuance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW32k7x7zE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW32k7x7zE0

syshum 7y ago
Third party doctrine has little to with this case, I agree it is a problem, but that is not what I was talking about in my post The Thrid Pary doctrine allows the Government to end run the 4th amendment if you discloused info to a 3rd party. In this instance, the government is claiming they do not have to talk about the technology at all, even to the point of proving it actually does what they claim. In criminal Trails they treat it as a black box that is magical.. this should not be allowed evidence collected by it directly or as a result of his use should be barred unless the defence has access to the technology fo independent review The government claims they do not have to disclose anything because they signed a contract with the manufacturer saying they would not disclose anything about the tech.
- arminiusreturns 7y ago
  True, but I was talking about the actual issue primarily being that Stingrays are mostly micro targeted, often with warrants due to costs, etc, while the vast majority of cell providers have warrantless, sometimes even subpoena-less web portals for LEAs to conduct spying operations on the public, or how the vast majority of the cell tower companies (separate from the major providers) themselves have the most useful information and do the same types of things. While stingrays are an issue, the vast majority of spying on cell phone users (read: vast majority of US pop) comes from those other mechanisms which do employ the third party doctrine loopholes. I should have been more specific, but you are right about Stingray.
  - syshum 7y ago
    Well some of that falls on Congress not the 4th amendment We need to redefine data ownership in this country, not just to curb police abuse, but to curb the abuse of corporations as well That extends well beyond the 3rd party doctrine

syshum 7y ago

Third party doctrine has little to with this case, I agree it is a problem, but that is not what I was talking about in my post The Thrid Pary doctrine allows the Government to end run the 4th amendment if you discloused info to a 3rd party. In this instance, the government is claiming they do not have to talk about the technology at all, even to the point of proving it actually does what they claim. In criminal Trails they treat it as a black box that is magical.. this should not be allowed evidence collected by it directly or as a result of his use should be barred unless the defence has access to the technology fo independent review The government claims they do not have to disclose anything because they signed a contract with the manufacturer saying they would not disclose anything about the tech.

arminiusreturns 7y ago
True, but I was talking about the actual issue primarily being that Stingrays are mostly micro targeted, often with warrants due to costs, etc, while the vast majority of cell providers have warrantless, sometimes even subpoena-less web portals for LEAs to conduct spying operations on the public, or how the vast majority of the cell tower companies (separate from the major providers) themselves have the most useful information and do the same types of things. While stingrays are an issue, the vast majority of spying on cell phone users (read: vast majority of US pop) comes from those other mechanisms which do employ the third party doctrine loopholes. I should have been more specific, but you are right about Stingray.
- syshum 7y ago
  Well some of that falls on Congress not the 4th amendment We need to redefine data ownership in this country, not just to curb police abuse, but to curb the abuse of corporations as well That extends well beyond the 3rd party doctrine