3 ms·
This isn't the police reading your emails. It is envelope metadata (to/from). This type of surveillance is not even a search under the 4th Amendment (Smith v. M
by jeffbee 3y ago
This isn't the police reading your emails. It is envelope metadata (to/from). This type of surveillance is not even a search under the 4th Amendment (Smith v. Maryland). Having a warrant makes the activities described in the article completely legitimate. It is the definition of "due process".
- nulbyte 3y agoIt may not be a search under that case, but plenty of folks disagree with that assessment. It's not like the telcos publish metadata for anyone to read. It is private data, and the fact that government officers think they have carte blanche to get it, and worse, can find judges that agree with them, is disagreeable to a significant portion of the population. Is it warranted (figuratively, not literally) in this instance? Perhaps. But nonetheless, it re-opens the conversation about the wider implications about warrantless searches.
- jeffbee 3y agoThat isn't the discussion that HN seems to be having though. The idea that a court cannot order a search is an extreme, fringe position.
- karaterobot 3y ago> It is envelope metadata (to/from). Right, but! That's what the conversation would be about, without a long discussion and a lot of context. That's why we don't have the conversation: it's too hard, and people would just say "stop listening to my phone calls, you government perverts". And because we don't have that conversation, it's a surprise when things like this come up.