7 ms·

Not a Supreme Court ruling: if there's no law outlawing it, there's no basis for them to rule against it. Do you really want five unelected, unaccountable lawy

Not a Supreme Court ruling: if there's no law outlawing it, there's no basis for them to rule against it. Do you really want five unelected, unaccountable lawyers deciding this matter?

bagacrap 5y ago
The judiciary doesn't just rule on the constitutionality of laws (actions by the legislature) but also actions by the executive, for example vaccine mandates.
- judge2020 5y ago
  Sure, but the CIA has existed since 1947- if it were illegal for them to gather information on citizens from companies who willingly give it up (for free or for sale), it would've already been decided and would apply to today's data.
nostromo 5y ago
Here you go: "Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ukd1 5y ago
  But, nothing is being searched or seized here; it seems like people gave up their personal data, ignored or didn't read a ToS, and companies are selling it - not being forced to give it up. I don't like it, but does it mean it's illegal?
  - kiba 5y ago
    Nobody reads ToS. Doesn't mean people should give up their personal data. Maybe it should be illegal?
    - sumedh 5y ago
      > Maybe it should be illegal? Then Congress has to pass a law to make it illegal.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Data held by 3rd parties falls under "papers and effects".
    - coldacid 5y ago
      According to what law or precedent?
    - ethanbond 5y ago
      Not really. It’s the service’s papers and effects, which happen to contain information about you. There’s obviously something very wrong here, but it’s a dead end to say no one can sell the government info about people. Need a different approach in the vein of outlawing crazy TOSs, keeping user ownership of their data even if used to make a service operate, right to be forgotten, etc.
      - jkhdigital 5y ago
        As far as I know, a warrant is required to tap a landline phone. I don't see how the principle behind that (reasonable) interpretation of the 4th amendment would not also apply to any kind of data (or metadata) from Internet traffic. Just because some 3rd party collected what is, by legal precedent, clearly considered personal effects and papers does not mean that 3rd party can grant absolution to the government in its need for a warrant to obtain that same data.
        5y ago
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Amendment IV doesn't actually expressly include a warrant requirement for anything. It requires searches and seizures to be reasonable. It also creates requirements for the basis of any warrants that are issued. It is a series of Supreme Court rulings that infers a general warrant requirement with some exceptions from that text.
  - inter_netuser 5y ago
    The biggest weasel word of all time: "reasonable".
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  The fourth amendment doesn't address the case where people voluntarily provide information to a third party which contracts with the government to pass it on. It's indicative of the attitude we should have in the matter, but it's not basis enough for a legitimate Supreme Court opinion — not that that will prevent one being given, mind you. There really does need to be a law preventing government from contracting with private companies to provide confidential information without a warrant.
  - pishpash 5y ago
    The ruling shouldn't be on the Fourth Amendment but on unenforceable blanket ToS's. It would require a law or another amendment though. Any information collection that is not affirmatively allowed by your actively posting it yourself, or that you allow on each individual instance should be illegal.
  - RNCTX 5y ago
    The amendment doesn't say "secure from government" or "secure from law enforcement." It just says "secure." A person cannot sell themselves into slavery. Yet we allow the US government to endorse indentured servitude for immigrant labor, because corporations want indentured servitude. Nor can a US citizen sign away workplace safety rights, legally. Yet we allow US construction companies to rampantly hire off-the-books undocumented labor so that they can freely ignore workplace safety rights, since no one will exist to make claims against them. It would have been perfectly reasonable for a court to broadly ban surveillance of individuals by telecom companies back in the 1990s, based on the same principles that those courts have willfully violated on behalf of corporations in the other examples above.
    - pishpash 5y ago
      It doesn't bind private persons, but it can certainly be argued that by the government making a purchase, the collection (even if retroactive) is pursuant to government direction through the incentive or interest nexus, and therefore the collection itself should be unconstitutional as soon as the government makes one purchase.
    - 5y ago
yupper32 5y ago
This falls under the 4th amendment. Certainly under the purview of the Supreme Court. I'm not going to pretend to know what the ruling would/should be according to the 4th amendment, though. > Do you really want five unelected, unaccountable lawyers deciding this matter? No but that's what happens when Congress is so split right now.

Not a Supreme Court ruling: if there's no law outlawing it, there's no basis for them to rule against it. Do you really want five unelected, unaccountable lawyers deciding this matter?

bagacrap 5y ago

The judiciary doesn't just rule on the constitutionality of laws (actions by the legislature) but also actions by the executive, for example vaccine mandates.

judge2020 5y ago
Sure, but the CIA has existed since 1947- if it were illegal for them to gather information on citizens from companies who willingly give it up (for free or for sale), it would've already been decided and would apply to today's data.

nostromo 5y ago

Here you go: "Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ukd1 5y ago
But, nothing is being searched or seized here; it seems like people gave up their personal data, ignored or didn't read a ToS, and companies are selling it - not being forced to give it up. I don't like it, but does it mean it's illegal?
- kiba 5y ago
  Nobody reads ToS. Doesn't mean people should give up their personal data. Maybe it should be illegal?
  - sumedh 5y ago
    > Maybe it should be illegal? Then Congress has to pass a law to make it illegal.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Data held by 3rd parties falls under "papers and effects".
  - coldacid 5y ago
    According to what law or precedent?
  - ethanbond 5y ago
    Not really. It’s the service’s papers and effects, which happen to contain information about you. There’s obviously something very wrong here, but it’s a dead end to say no one can sell the government info about people. Need a different approach in the vein of outlawing crazy TOSs, keeping user ownership of their data even if used to make a service operate, right to be forgotten, etc.
    - jkhdigital 5y ago
      As far as I know, a warrant is required to tap a landline phone. I don't see how the principle behind that (reasonable) interpretation of the 4th amendment would not also apply to any kind of data (or metadata) from Internet traffic. Just because some 3rd party collected what is, by legal precedent, clearly considered personal effects and papers does not mean that 3rd party can grant absolution to the government in its need for a warrant to obtain that same data.
      - 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
Amendment IV doesn't actually expressly include a warrant requirement for anything. It requires searches and seizures to be reasonable. It also creates requirements for the basis of any warrants that are issued. It is a series of Supreme Court rulings that infers a general warrant requirement with some exceptions from that text.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  The biggest weasel word of all time: "reasonable".
JasonFruit 5y ago
The fourth amendment doesn't address the case where people voluntarily provide information to a third party which contracts with the government to pass it on. It's indicative of the attitude we should have in the matter, but it's not basis enough for a legitimate Supreme Court opinion — not that that will prevent one being given, mind you. There really does need to be a law preventing government from contracting with private companies to provide confidential information without a warrant.
- pishpash 5y ago
  The ruling shouldn't be on the Fourth Amendment but on unenforceable blanket ToS's. It would require a law or another amendment though. Any information collection that is not affirmatively allowed by your actively posting it yourself, or that you allow on each individual instance should be illegal.
- RNCTX 5y ago
  The amendment doesn't say "secure from government" or "secure from law enforcement." It just says "secure." A person cannot sell themselves into slavery. Yet we allow the US government to endorse indentured servitude for immigrant labor, because corporations want indentured servitude. Nor can a US citizen sign away workplace safety rights, legally. Yet we allow US construction companies to rampantly hire off-the-books undocumented labor so that they can freely ignore workplace safety rights, since no one will exist to make claims against them. It would have been perfectly reasonable for a court to broadly ban surveillance of individuals by telecom companies back in the 1990s, based on the same principles that those courts have willfully violated on behalf of corporations in the other examples above.
  - pishpash 5y ago
    It doesn't bind private persons, but it can certainly be argued that by the government making a purchase, the collection (even if retroactive) is pursuant to government direction through the incentive or interest nexus, and therefore the collection itself should be unconstitutional as soon as the government makes one purchase.
  - 5y ago

yupper32 5y ago

This falls under the 4th amendment. Certainly under the purview of the Supreme Court. I'm not going to pretend to know what the ruling would/should be according to the 4th amendment, though. > Do you really want five unelected, unaccountable lawyers deciding this matter? No but that's what happens when Congress is so split right now.