3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI 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.