4 ms·

One way of understanding the previous comment in light of what you've said is: the third-party doctrine is so obviously wrong it's sickening.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> the third-party doctrine is so obviously wrong it's sickening Perhaps I’m overindexing on the term “sickening,” but it seems unhelpful to bring an emotion like disgust into a technical legal discussion. Where one has (and doesn’t have) a reasonable expectation of privacy isn’t trivial. I think it’s obvious that a cop who recognizes a fugitive in public is acting reasonably while the same cop doing a facial-recognition search at a public school parking lot may not. Where does searching public Twitter photos lie? What if they’re only accessible with a login? If you can’t tell, I think the third-party doctrine as presently interpreted is wrong. But the history leading up to it is incredibly reasonable, recent and well documented.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- indymike 3y ago
  > Perhaps I’m overindexing on the term “sickening,” but it seems unhelpful to bring an emotion like disgust into a technical legal discussion. When true is redefined to false, it tends to raise emotions to a high level. Injustice often results in people's lives being disrupted and ruined where the ruin never should have happened. We should be disgusted by injustice.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > We should be disgusted by injustice Sure, do that. This isn’t that. Being “disgusted” by the Third Party Doctrine, broadly, isn’t the same as being offended by injustice.
    - indymike 3y ago
      The third party doctrine is disgustingly unjust.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > I think it’s obvious that a cop who recognizes a fugitive in public is acting reasonably while the same cop doing a facial-recognition search at a public school parking lot may not. Where does searching public Twitter photos lie? What if they’re only accessible with a login? There are some pretty obvious and reasonable lines we could draw here. For example, is the thing available to the general population, or only to specific parties who haven't chosen to make it public? This doesn't necessarily answer your question, because you might e.g. have a reasonable expectation that data which is ephemerally available to the general population is not being recorded en masse and indexed into a central database, but it provides a boundary that would have eliminated a large swath of the trouble.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > some pretty obvious and reasonable lines we could draw here I agree. The problem is we have, on one hand, the police absolutists, and on the other hand, people who want to express their outrage more than do anything real. Neither bothers educating themselves on the legal merits of the other side’s. Both turn the Third Party Doctrine into a totem. The Third Party Doctrine was created by Congress. Barring SCOTUS overturning half a century of law (again), that means the Congress must remake it. The lack of a popular alternative directly leads to the Doctrine’s persistence. We could draw these lines. But we don’t because we’re too busy expressing conniptions.
    - zerocrates 3y ago
      The third-party doctrine was created by the courts, not Congress. US v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland are the typically-cited sources of it.
      - beaeglebeached 3y ago
        Is this the same Miller where the courts ruled in a case against an undefended dead guy that NFA, which now is amended to outlaw registry of new automatic weapons, was constitutional because it was just a revenue collection law and preserved right to military-type weapons?
- EasyMark 3y ago
  Why tho? Judges have used emotional words in decisions for centuries. It is disgusting and abusive of what should be both logical and common sense upon reading the most basic rights we have in the Bill of Rights. Emotion has a place in life as well as much as cold hard logic.
- UncleMeat 3y ago
  It isn't trivial, but the lines have been drawn in wildly bizarre places. NBD if the cops fly a helicopter over your house to try to spot weed plants in your backyard behind a fence and no trespassing signs, for example. NBD if your communications are only likely to have been swept up by the NSA and you aren't able to prove that it has happened. And on and on.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> the third-party doctrine is so obviously wrong it's sickening Perhaps I’m overindexing on the term “sickening,” but it seems unhelpful to bring an emotion like disgust into a technical legal discussion. Where one has (and doesn’t have) a reasonable expectation of privacy isn’t trivial. I think it’s obvious that a cop who recognizes a fugitive in public is acting reasonably while the same cop doing a facial-recognition search at a public school parking lot may not. Where does searching public Twitter photos lie? What if they’re only accessible with a login? If you can’t tell, I think the third-party doctrine as presently interpreted is wrong. But the history leading up to it is incredibly reasonable, recent and well documented.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
indymike 3y ago
> Perhaps I’m overindexing on the term “sickening,” but it seems unhelpful to bring an emotion like disgust into a technical legal discussion. When true is redefined to false, it tends to raise emotions to a high level. Injustice often results in people's lives being disrupted and ruined where the ruin never should have happened. We should be disgusted by injustice.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > We should be disgusted by injustice Sure, do that. This isn’t that. Being “disgusted” by the Third Party Doctrine, broadly, isn’t the same as being offended by injustice.
  - indymike 3y ago
    The third party doctrine is disgustingly unjust.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> I think it’s obvious that a cop who recognizes a fugitive in public is acting reasonably while the same cop doing a facial-recognition search at a public school parking lot may not. Where does searching public Twitter photos lie? What if they’re only accessible with a login? There are some pretty obvious and reasonable lines we could draw here. For example, is the thing available to the general population, or only to specific parties who haven't chosen to make it public? This doesn't necessarily answer your question, because you might e.g. have a reasonable expectation that data which is ephemerally available to the general population is not being recorded en masse and indexed into a central database, but it provides a boundary that would have eliminated a large swath of the trouble.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > some pretty obvious and reasonable lines we could draw here I agree. The problem is we have, on one hand, the police absolutists, and on the other hand, people who want to express their outrage more than do anything real. Neither bothers educating themselves on the legal merits of the other side’s. Both turn the Third Party Doctrine into a totem. The Third Party Doctrine was created by Congress. Barring SCOTUS overturning half a century of law (again), that means the Congress must remake it. The lack of a popular alternative directly leads to the Doctrine’s persistence. We could draw these lines. But we don’t because we’re too busy expressing conniptions.
  - zerocrates 3y ago
    The third-party doctrine was created by the courts, not Congress. US v. Miller and Smith v. Maryland are the typically-cited sources of it.
    - beaeglebeached 3y ago
      Is this the same Miller where the courts ruled in a case against an undefended dead guy that NFA, which now is amended to outlaw registry of new automatic weapons, was constitutional because it was just a revenue collection law and preserved right to military-type weapons?
EasyMark 3y ago
Why tho? Judges have used emotional words in decisions for centuries. It is disgusting and abusive of what should be both logical and common sense upon reading the most basic rights we have in the Bill of Rights. Emotion has a place in life as well as much as cold hard logic.
UncleMeat 3y ago
It isn't trivial, but the lines have been drawn in wildly bizarre places. NBD if the cops fly a helicopter over your house to try to spot weed plants in your backyard behind a fence and no trespassing signs, for example. NBD if your communications are only likely to have been swept up by the NSA and you aren't able to prove that it has happened. And on and on.