3 ms·

So, uh, what right to be secure in person and property without a warrant approved by a judge? The US Bill of Rights was so contentious at the time and the supp

So, uh, what right to be secure in person and property without a warrant approved by a judge? The US Bill of Rights was so contentious at the time and the supporters so adamant that they ended up being the first 10 amendments to our constitution. The supporters could have very well held out and either forced them to be included in the constitution or left us with the original Articles of Confederation (not the Southern State's one) but compromised. Even if the Bill of Rights were in the constitution, and not amendments, I expect they would be just as disposable. And for what? So the DEA and CIA can continue to operate with the same privilege as the East India Company? How does this, or the drug war, serve the average American? I do not for a second believe this provides any benefit to the average American. I do believe it will allow executive agencies privileged access to markets and information of felonious goods, likely to their benefit and not the citizens.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
Don't forget that CBP has essentially unlimited vehicle search authority within 100 miles of federal borders. Two thirds of the US population live within that zone. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone Imagine living in NYC, hopping on a subway car to go to work from your apartment in the Bronx, and getting stopped/searched by CBP, agents seizing your cell phone and laptop, and demanding your social media account passwords and threatening to detain you if you don't comply: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/give-us-your-passwords/516315/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/give-... https://www.wired.com/2017/02/guide-getting-past-customs-digital-privacy-intact/ https://www.wired.com/2017/02/guide-getting-past-customs-dig... It's fucking insane that US citizens are now advised to make sure a family member, friend, or attorney is aware of you traveling across a US border in case you're detained. This country just keeps slipping further and further towards fascism.
- immibis 3y ago
  The country is already fascist. Don't downplay it.
  - WentFullRetard 3y ago
    [dead]
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >It's fucking insane that US citizens are now advised to make sure a family member, friend, or attorney is aware of you traveling across a US border in case you're detained. You have always been advised to leave emergency contact information with someone when traveling abroad, and also to register with the US embassy at your destination if it's an extended stay. Most people don't bother because usually nothing happens and they come back in one piece, but who knows if some deity of the day decided that this was your turn to get fucked, after all? This is all just long standing common sense grounded in practical reality.
- c4tf00d 3y ago
  >The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against arbitrary searches and seizures of people and their property, even in this expanded border area. Laws differ between ports of entry and interior checkpoints.
- refurb 3y ago
  Don't forget that CBP has essentially unlimited vehicle search authority within 100 miles of federal borders. I don't think you read your own link. "The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against arbitrary searches and seizures of people and their property, even in this expanded border area."
immibis 3y ago
Your communications are neither your person nor your property, so they don't need a warrant according to the constitution.
- KirillPanov 3y ago
  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. ... from a time when all communication occurred via writing upon paper.
  - immibis 3y ago
    "Computers aren't made of paper - it's legal" - the supreme court
    - twoodfin 3y ago
      This is about as far from the Court’s 4th amendment jurisprudence as one could imagine. See, for example, Justice Scalia’s ruling in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
      - rcme 3y ago
        That’s different. That involves a house, and the word house appears in the 4th amendment.
Obscurity4340 3y ago
The issue they always raise is that encryption that is properly implemented (along with the relevant devices that are encrypted properly) is effectively unbreakable and equals a "get out of jail free" card to the extent that it invalidates the second half of the statement (without a warrant approved by a judge) which grants lawful justification for invalidating that right/protection. I think this is a part of what's driving the adoption of passkeys (which seem to only require biometrics) because the biometrics part invaliates the entire protection (producing your fingerprint or face is not protected, only speech/testimonial). They eliminate phishing (unlawful theats) and facillitate bypassing encryption (lawful threats), no matter how strong.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

Don't forget that CBP has essentially unlimited vehicle search authority within 100 miles of federal borders. Two thirds of the US population live within that zone. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone Imagine living in NYC, hopping on a subway car to go to work from your apartment in the Bronx, and getting stopped/searched by CBP, agents seizing your cell phone and laptop, and demanding your social media account passwords and threatening to detain you if you don't comply: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/give-us-your-passwords/516315/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/give-... https://www.wired.com/2017/02/guide-getting-past-customs-digital-privacy-intact/ https://www.wired.com/2017/02/guide-getting-past-customs-dig... It's fucking insane that US citizens are now advised to make sure a family member, friend, or attorney is aware of you traveling across a US border in case you're detained. This country just keeps slipping further and further towards fascism.

immibis 3y ago
The country is already fascist. Don't downplay it.
- WentFullRetard 3y ago
  [dead]
Dalewyn 3y ago
>It's fucking insane that US citizens are now advised to make sure a family member, friend, or attorney is aware of you traveling across a US border in case you're detained. You have always been advised to leave emergency contact information with someone when traveling abroad, and also to register with the US embassy at your destination if it's an extended stay. Most people don't bother because usually nothing happens and they come back in one piece, but who knows if some deity of the day decided that this was your turn to get fucked, after all? This is all just long standing common sense grounded in practical reality.
c4tf00d 3y ago
>The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against arbitrary searches and seizures of people and their property, even in this expanded border area. Laws differ between ports of entry and interior checkpoints.
refurb 3y ago
Don't forget that CBP has essentially unlimited vehicle search authority within 100 miles of federal borders. I don't think you read your own link. "The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against arbitrary searches and seizures of people and their property, even in this expanded border area."

immibis 3y ago

Your communications are neither your person nor your property, so they don't need a warrant according to the constitution.

KirillPanov 3y ago
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. ... from a time when all communication occurred via writing upon paper.
- immibis 3y ago
  "Computers aren't made of paper - it's legal" - the supreme court
  - twoodfin 3y ago
    This is about as far from the Court’s 4th amendment jurisprudence as one could imagine. See, for example, Justice Scalia’s ruling in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
    - rcme 3y ago
      That’s different. That involves a house, and the word house appears in the 4th amendment.

Obscurity4340 3y ago

The issue they always raise is that encryption that is properly implemented (along with the relevant devices that are encrypted properly) is effectively unbreakable and equals a "get out of jail free" card to the extent that it invalidates the second half of the statement (without a warrant approved by a judge) which grants lawful justification for invalidating that right/protection. I think this is a part of what's driving the adoption of passkeys (which seem to only require biometrics) because the biometrics part invaliates the entire protection (producing your fingerprint or face is not protected, only speech/testimonial). They eliminate phishing (unlawful theats) and facillitate bypassing encryption (lawful threats), no matter how strong.