3 ms·
Cell records seem like “papers” to me. Just because this case isn’t specifically outlined in the text doesn’t mean that power is automatically granted to the go
by ch4s3 4y ago
Cell records seem like “papers” to me. Just because this case isn’t specifically outlined in the text doesn’t mean that power is automatically granted to the government without a warrant.
- krapp 4y ago>Cell records seem like “papers” to me. But would they seem like papers to someone in the 1700s? "Papers" in that context are physical documents, parchment and ink. That's the problem with Constitutional originalism - it boils down to interpreting the mind of an imaginary ghost, which fundamentally leads to justifying confirmation bias by proxy.
- ch4s3 4y agoThey had documents held by third parties that pertained to your commercial activities. Looking at them required a warrant.
- j33zusjuice 4y agoExactly. This isn’t new, this is just further abstracted. When we consider what these things are analogous to, then, yes, they should require a warrant. Should the government be allowed to intercept your mail, make an exact replica, and send the original to the intended recipient? Obviously not. The same, therefore, applies to packets. Should LE be allowed to look at all the recipients of your snail mail without a warrant? Absolutely not. They, therefore, should not be allowed to read your call logs. It’s basically the same.
- jfengel 4y agoAs far as I can tell, they are allowed to read envelopes without a warrant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_cover
- mixmastamyk 4y agoUnfortunately they are someone else’s papers, someone in bed with the government.