4 ms·
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 Wa
by argiopetech 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.
As Franklin said, "A republic, if you can keep it." This requires every citizen to know the rules (the 4th amendment, in this case,) and to have the intestinal fortitude to enforce those rules.
Unfortunately, even assuming the rules are known (they aren't), "I don't agree with your statement, but I'll fight and die for your right to state it" is a lost sentiment.
- ceejayoz 3y agoThe gaping loophole in the Fourth is precisely what this article is about. It's not about "knowing the rules", it's that this rule doesn't apply here.
- argiopetech 3y agoIt's also about closing that loophole and bringing it in line with a "Constitutional privacy amendment" (in the comment to which I originally replied). We have one of those already, what good would another do in this case.?
- 23B1 3y agoDo you believe the 4th amendment is sufficiently protecting your privacy now?
- 23B1 3y ago> This requires every citizen to know the rules (the 4th amendment, in this case,) and to have the intestinal fortitude to enforce those rules. This is a very privileged take!
- argiopetech 3y agoHow? You see something I don't, and I'd be curious to know what.
- 23B1 3y agoHistory. I see history.
- kube-system 3y ago> unreasonable searches and seizures But critically, "polite requests" is not in that list. The 4th does not prohibit CVS from telling the police whatever they want to. Nor does it prohibit the police from asking. It only prohibits the police from taking the information by force.
- argiopetech 3y agoA required subpoena goes a bit beyond polite request. The 4th doesn't mention force, only prohibiting "unreasonable" action. That we've allowed "reasonable" searches to include "subpoena CVS's central database" and dilute a fundamental guarantee of privacy from federal government is a failure of the citizenry, which is what this article points out and what the lawmakers mentioned in the article are trying to correct.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]