6 ms·

Can you flesh out how what is effectively out in the open is protected by 4A? We have en mass traded privacy for convenience and saving a few bucks. We've liter

Can you flesh out how what is effectively out in the open is protected by 4A? We have en mass traded privacy for convenience and saving a few bucks. We've literally sold our privacy souls. If you put your gun collection on your front yard, would a warrant be necessary? Well, our dirty laundry is hanging in the front yard, along with the rest of our personal data yard sale. That said, I know there's a book dedicated to 1A, if there's similar for 4A I be interested. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_for_the_Thought_That_We_Hate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_for_the_Thought_That... p.s. I should clarify, I'm pro-privacy. But if we're going to give ourselves away as we do, it's not clear to me how 4A protects that.

crotchfire 3y ago
Carpenter v. United States (2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States "in Carpenter the court determined that the third-party doctrine could not be extended to historical cell site location information (CSLI)" Cell towers aren't a free market. Go ahead, try setting one up without involving the government. Cell towers are a massively-regulated sector that has collapsed into a trigopoly. The supreme court recognized this in 2018. Highly-regulated, highly-concentrated telecommunications carriers are, for purposes of the fourth amendment, treated as being part of the government. Hopefully the same reasoning will be applied to banking (another highly-regulated, highly-concentrated, surveillance industry), but the court hasn't done that yet.
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  And yet the same three-letter intelligence agency hoovered up tons of phone meta data and...nothing happened legally to stop that. In fact, the whistle blower had to flee the country under a POTUS who expanded the reach of The Patriot Act. Also, that telecommunications data was a direct dump to the NSA. This other data is for sale on the open market. Anyone with the money can buy it. Hard to imagine 4A protects that which was legally acquired and being resold. If there's legal precedent to prevent this stuff it must be on holiday.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > nothing happened This is untrue. Legally and politically.
    - chiefalchemist 3y ago
      Snowden is still considered a criminal. Again, politically, it was the same POTUS who extended and expanded the Patriot Act, and got zero - or close - push back for both efforts. Legally? Does it matter? When was the last time the law stopped the NSA from pushing - and breaking - the envelope? Aside from Snowden, who suffered? Hint: No one. Nuff said.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Legally? Does it matter? Yes. Funding was shifted and practices changed. > Aside from Snowden, who suffered? Hint: No one. Nuff said Retribution isn’t the sole measure of progress.
- ethanbond 3y ago
  Whoa whoa, the Carpenter ruling has nothing to do with govt involvement in cell towers nor with the trigopoly. It has to do with two things: cell towers collect so much highly-personal info, and, more importantly, you have to have a cellphone to live in modern America.
  - crotchfire 3y ago
    > Whoa whoa, You sound like Michael Hayden when you say that. It's about centralization and regulation.
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      It literally is not. Read the opinion. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14655974745807704559&q=138+S.+Ct.+2206&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=146559747458077... Centralization or regulation or government involvement in cell towers etc etc is not mentioned even once, not even obliquely. It is totally and completely irrelevant.
austin-cheney 3y ago
Things I noticed yesterday that really confused people: * The fourth amendment does not provide a right to privacy. In US federal law there is no right to privacy except for the limited provisions defined in the Privacy Act of 1974. * The NSA is not law enforcement just as the Census Bureau is not law enforcement. Even when this was pointed out people still attempted to prove some point by comparing the NSA to police departments. * Rights exist to protect people from government intrusion. People really want to either confuse rights with liberties or sweeping mandates applied irrespective of personal intrusions. Your example is confusing. What does a warrant have to do with a person displaying weapons on their own lawn?
- chiefalchemist 3y ago
  Things in the open don't need a warrant. To get to this personal data doesn't require intrusion. We've used it as currency and that currency is being resold on the open market. I'm asking how 4A protects what is out in the open.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  Does the Census Bureau collect information beyond what I voluntarily report?
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    It isn't voluntary. 13 U.S.C. § 221
    - Amezarak 3y ago
      The Census response rate is about 60%. It's interesting that this law is on the books but it is not enforced. The census also has a constitutional mandate, where the NSA does not.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago

crotchfire 3y ago

Carpenter v. United States (2018) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States "in Carpenter the court determined that the third-party doctrine could not be extended to historical cell site location information (CSLI)" Cell towers aren't a free market. Go ahead, try setting one up without involving the government. Cell towers are a massively-regulated sector that has collapsed into a trigopoly. The supreme court recognized this in 2018. Highly-regulated, highly-concentrated telecommunications carriers are, for purposes of the fourth amendment, treated as being part of the government. Hopefully the same reasoning will be applied to banking (another highly-regulated, highly-concentrated, surveillance industry), but the court hasn't done that yet.

chiefalchemist 3y ago
And yet the same three-letter intelligence agency hoovered up tons of phone meta data and...nothing happened legally to stop that. In fact, the whistle blower had to flee the country under a POTUS who expanded the reach of The Patriot Act. Also, that telecommunications data was a direct dump to the NSA. This other data is for sale on the open market. Anyone with the money can buy it. Hard to imagine 4A protects that which was legally acquired and being resold. If there's legal precedent to prevent this stuff it must be on holiday.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > nothing happened This is untrue. Legally and politically.
  - chiefalchemist 3y ago
    Snowden is still considered a criminal. Again, politically, it was the same POTUS who extended and expanded the Patriot Act, and got zero - or close - push back for both efforts. Legally? Does it matter? When was the last time the law stopped the NSA from pushing - and breaking - the envelope? Aside from Snowden, who suffered? Hint: No one. Nuff said.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Legally? Does it matter? Yes. Funding was shifted and practices changed. > Aside from Snowden, who suffered? Hint: No one. Nuff said Retribution isn’t the sole measure of progress.
ethanbond 3y ago
Whoa whoa, the Carpenter ruling has nothing to do with govt involvement in cell towers nor with the trigopoly. It has to do with two things: cell towers collect so much highly-personal info, and, more importantly, you have to have a cellphone to live in modern America.
- crotchfire 3y ago
  > Whoa whoa, You sound like Michael Hayden when you say that. It's about centralization and regulation.
  - ethanbond 3y ago
    It literally is not. Read the opinion. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14655974745807704559&q=138+S.+Ct.+2206&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=146559747458077... Centralization or regulation or government involvement in cell towers etc etc is not mentioned even once, not even obliquely. It is totally and completely irrelevant.

austin-cheney 3y ago

Things I noticed yesterday that really confused people: * The fourth amendment does not provide a right to privacy. In US federal law there is no right to privacy except for the limited provisions defined in the Privacy Act of 1974. * The NSA is not law enforcement just as the Census Bureau is not law enforcement. Even when this was pointed out people still attempted to prove some point by comparing the NSA to police departments. * Rights exist to protect people from government intrusion. People really want to either confuse rights with liberties or sweeping mandates applied irrespective of personal intrusions. Your example is confusing. What does a warrant have to do with a person displaying weapons on their own lawn?

chiefalchemist 3y ago
Things in the open don't need a warrant. To get to this personal data doesn't require intrusion. We've used it as currency and that currency is being resold on the open market. I'm asking how 4A protects what is out in the open.
Amezarak 3y ago
Does the Census Bureau collect information beyond what I voluntarily report?
- torstenvl 3y ago
  It isn't voluntary. 13 U.S.C. § 221
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    The Census response rate is about 60%. It's interesting that this law is on the books but it is not enforced. The census also has a constitutional mandate, where the NSA does not.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 3y ago