3 ms·
What provision of the constitution does it violate? Do you know of court precedents that support that claim? I'm not writing this to argue against your positio
by Zak 3y ago
What provision of the constitution does it violate? Do you know of court precedents that support that claim?
I'm not writing this to argue against your position, but to help people craft effective comments to submit in response to the proposed regulation. Federal agencies are not responsive to comments about people disliking a proposed rule, but are very responsive to concrete examples of why it might be legally problematic.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dr-detroit 3y ago[dead]
- kolanos 3y agoThe fourth amendment? > “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 ...
- EGG_CREAM 3y agoHow does verifying your identity in any way violate that, though? You have a physical address that you live at, and the government verifies that you are the person living at that address, and that is not violating the fourth amendment. This would be pretty similar to that.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y agoOf course the words are open to interpretation but "unreasonable searches" seem to encompass this sort of thing. Usually it's taken case by case and reasons would need to be given for every individual being searched. This is a blanket excuse to search every interaction without a reason.
- kolanos 3y agoThe fourth amendment requires probable cause of a crime prior to being forced to identify yourself. This rule is forcing companies to verify the identities of their customers on behalf of the government for vague national security reasons.