5 ms·
I'd agree that the 4th Amendment ought to cover it. It isn't unambiguous, though. It isn't hard to see how a lawyer could point out that "and to forever secure
by mmcdermott 5y ago
I'd agree that the 4th Amendment ought to cover it.
It isn't unambiguous, though. It isn't hard to see how a lawyer could point out that "and to forever secure the people, their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against all unreasonable searches and seizures under the guise of law" says nothing about purchasing data from a 3rd party. This wasn't really something that would have come up in the 18th century.
Extending the letter to match the spirit is why reflection is built into the runtime of the current constitution.
- manquer 5y agoThe federalist society which has hugely influential attorney and judicial membership believes in a textual interpretation of the constitution. They wouldn't go for a sensible modern reading but instead stick to gospel like dogma on how it was intended to be read 250 years ago I guess.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoI could get behind an originalist reading of the copyright clause.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y agoCan a Gov agent legally avoid the warrant requirement by paying some rando to perform an invasive search?
- pishpash 5y agoAnd furthermore can they reverse the order of said invasive search and payment through a wink-wink arrangement? I think the case is pretty strong against the government here. The EFF should bring a suit.
- fragmede 5y agoThe intentions that 3rd party has changed, but having a PI follow a suspect, or coercing (with money or threats) a CI to provide information predates computers and the Internet and probably the Industrial Revolution as a police tactic by a huge margin. Purchasing "data" from a 3rd party is a modern Internet spin, but it's not like the concept is brand new to the law or the legal department.