4 ms·

Lots of interesting legal principles raised by such developments versus "...the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

Lots of interesting legal principles raised by such developments versus "...the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...": -- Is the data gathered by a car company from your car (legally acknowledged to be a kind of extension of your "house"), yours to secure? -- Is it like a cellphone, containing personal, private information? -- Is it "your" data? -- Which data is "your" data? -- What if it's constantly being streamed out of your car to a 3rd party anyway? -- Do you have a right to seek its suppression?

smolder 6y ago
I would say that the spirit of the 4th amendment is long dead. I believe the founding fathers would have objected to NSA-scale data collection on citizens more directly if they could have predicted it, and that it goes against the spirit of this amendment. It can do a lot of good potentially, but also a lot of bad. It's too much power. There are a few other developments I think they would have objected to as well, such as unrestrained campaign finance and the accompanying blatant corruption.
- MacsHeadroom 6y ago
  They probably would've supported the money is speech argument. They detested democracy as mob rule by ignorant uneducated common folk. Obviously tides have shifted on democracy since the 1700s. But we don't need to revise history to argue that common folk should have a strong political voice.
  - smolder 6y ago
    Pure democracy for uneducated voters and removing limits on campaign finance (hinging on the argument that money is speech) seem like different issues to me. Related but different. I don't think disliking mob rule means liking what we have. Today we have unmitigated political spending aimed at manipulating and deceiving uneducated voters. We end up with voters less fit to vote and candidates less fit to lead. Any change you could make to put candidates on a level playing field where they aren't beholden to campaign funders could only make this country work better. The honest truth needs a chance to win over rhetoric. You're right though, I shouldn't project my views onto the founders just because I think they did a good job on the Constitution in the context of their time.
dsq 6y ago
In most countries, even those commonly regarded as democratic, there is no such constitutionally guaranteed right. A simple ministerial decision or even by mid level functionary is sufficient to violate your privacy.

smolder 6y ago

I would say that the spirit of the 4th amendment is long dead. I believe the founding fathers would have objected to NSA-scale data collection on citizens more directly if they could have predicted it, and that it goes against the spirit of this amendment. It can do a lot of good potentially, but also a lot of bad. It's too much power. There are a few other developments I think they would have objected to as well, such as unrestrained campaign finance and the accompanying blatant corruption.

MacsHeadroom 6y ago
They probably would've supported the money is speech argument. They detested democracy as mob rule by ignorant uneducated common folk. Obviously tides have shifted on democracy since the 1700s. But we don't need to revise history to argue that common folk should have a strong political voice.
- smolder 6y ago
  Pure democracy for uneducated voters and removing limits on campaign finance (hinging on the argument that money is speech) seem like different issues to me. Related but different. I don't think disliking mob rule means liking what we have. Today we have unmitigated political spending aimed at manipulating and deceiving uneducated voters. We end up with voters less fit to vote and candidates less fit to lead. Any change you could make to put candidates on a level playing field where they aren't beholden to campaign funders could only make this country work better. The honest truth needs a chance to win over rhetoric. You're right though, I shouldn't project my views onto the founders just because I think they did a good job on the Constitution in the context of their time.

dsq 6y ago

In most countries, even those commonly regarded as democratic, there is no such constitutionally guaranteed right. A simple ministerial decision or even by mid level functionary is sufficient to violate your privacy.