3 ms·

Arizona v. Gant

by WarOnPrivacy 5y ago

Arizona v. Gant

whimsicalism 5y ago
Paying someone for information != warrantless search. A search involves compulsion.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  No, it is more nuanced than that and depends on the nature of the information. Banks hold massive amounts of highly personal information about their customers, and this knowledge is an unavoidable consequence of the business relationship. I think most people would agree that the government needs a warrant to obtain this information, even if the bank was willing to sell it anyway.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    > I think most people would agree that the government needs a warrant to obtain this information, even if the bank was willing to sell it anyway. I don't think it is legal for banks to sell their balance information to other private entities either. But if it were, then I think it would be permissible for the government to be one of the buyers. Your interpretation of 4A is not backed by any legal precedent.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > A search involves compulsion. Exclusively? That's a novel interpretation of 4A. Where did you get it?
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    I get the impression that a majority of the commenters here are (somehow) not aware that there is a deep body of legal precedent interpreting 4A.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      I think that's a sound assessment.
    - whimsicalism 5y ago
      > there is a deep body of legal precedent interpreting 4A I don't think there's any landmark decision contrary to the interpretation of 4A that I'm putting forth. As it stands now, the interpretation I am putting forth is the one the government abides by - it can buy data from brokers without warrant if there is no compulsion.
      - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
        > I don't think there's any landmark decision contrary to the interpretation of 4A that I'm putting forth. There are tons of case law that have interpreted 4A out to it's currently upheld boundaries - boundaries that aren't well represented by the original wording. > the interpretation I am putting forth is the one the government abides by - it can buy data from brokers without warrant if there is no compulsion. You can believe that if you choose. It is curious tho, why you feel a compulsion to keep roping compulsion into it.
        whimsicalism 5y ago
        > You can believe that if you choose. It is curious tho, why you feel a compulsion to keep roping compulsion into it. Because that is where the current boundaries are at? That is the DHS/DOJs interpretation of 4A, and so far there has not been any successful court challenge of it.

Arizona v. Gant

whimsicalism 5y ago

Paying someone for information != warrantless search. A search involves compulsion.

jkhdigital 5y ago
No, it is more nuanced than that and depends on the nature of the information. Banks hold massive amounts of highly personal information about their customers, and this knowledge is an unavoidable consequence of the business relationship. I think most people would agree that the government needs a warrant to obtain this information, even if the bank was willing to sell it anyway.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  > I think most people would agree that the government needs a warrant to obtain this information, even if the bank was willing to sell it anyway. I don't think it is legal for banks to sell their balance information to other private entities either. But if it were, then I think it would be permissible for the government to be one of the buyers. Your interpretation of 4A is not backed by any legal precedent.
WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
> A search involves compulsion. Exclusively? That's a novel interpretation of 4A. Where did you get it?
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  I get the impression that a majority of the commenters here are (somehow) not aware that there is a deep body of legal precedent interpreting 4A.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    I think that's a sound assessment.
  - whimsicalism 5y ago
    > there is a deep body of legal precedent interpreting 4A I don't think there's any landmark decision contrary to the interpretation of 4A that I'm putting forth. As it stands now, the interpretation I am putting forth is the one the government abides by - it can buy data from brokers without warrant if there is no compulsion.
    - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
      > I don't think there's any landmark decision contrary to the interpretation of 4A that I'm putting forth. There are tons of case law that have interpreted 4A out to it's currently upheld boundaries - boundaries that aren't well represented by the original wording. > the interpretation I am putting forth is the one the government abides by - it can buy data from brokers without warrant if there is no compulsion. You can believe that if you choose. It is curious tho, why you feel a compulsion to keep roping compulsion into it.
      - whimsicalism 5y ago
        > You can believe that if you choose. It is curious tho, why you feel a compulsion to keep roping compulsion into it. Because that is where the current boundaries are at? That is the DHS/DOJs interpretation of 4A, and so far there has not been any successful court challenge of it.