4 ms·

The courts view service providers as "third parties" and when you knowingly give them your data, the courts believe that it is no longer yours and is thereby no

The courts view service providers as "third parties" and when you knowingly give them your data, the courts believe that it is no longer yours and is thereby not protected by the Fourth Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

gowld 1y ago
The "Third Party doctrine" is a blatantly unconstitutional power grab. It was originally controversially applied to a person's transactions with a bank, and then absurdly extended to include anything anyone holds for someone else, even someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage.
- gruez 1y ago
  >and then absurdly extended to include anything anyone holds for someone else, even someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage. Was there actually a court ruling affirming this interpretation? Skimming the wikipedia article, all the court cases has to do with metadata generated by the third party provider (eg. cell site data or cryptocurrency transaction information). You can argue those should be protected as well, but it's not something like "someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage", like an email inbox or whatever.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  Does it apply to safe-deposit boxes?
  - namibj 1y ago
    I'd not be surprised if that's exactly why those boxes always come with a keyhole that the renter has the only key for; the official process for "lost my keys" is paying the lock drilling and replacing fee stipulated in the rental agreement.
  - themafia 1y ago
    They thought it did. It may not. Thankfully the law is not static: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-23/appeals-court-finds-fbi-did-violate-rights-of-some-beverly-hills-safe-deposit-box-holders https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-23/appeals-... https://archive.is/RnU68 https://archive.is/RnU68

gowld 1y ago

The "Third Party doctrine" is a blatantly unconstitutional power grab. It was originally controversially applied to a person's transactions with a bank, and then absurdly extended to include anything anyone holds for someone else, even someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage.

gruez 1y ago
>and then absurdly extended to include anything anyone holds for someone else, even someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage. Was there actually a court ruling affirming this interpretation? Skimming the wikipedia article, all the court cases has to do with metadata generated by the third party provider (eg. cell site data or cryptocurrency transaction information). You can argue those should be protected as well, but it's not something like "someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage", like an email inbox or whatever.
SoftTalker 1y ago
Does it apply to safe-deposit boxes?
- namibj 1y ago
  I'd not be surprised if that's exactly why those boxes always come with a keyhole that the renter has the only key for; the official process for "lost my keys" is paying the lock drilling and replacing fee stipulated in the rental agreement.
- themafia 1y ago
  They thought it did. It may not. Thankfully the law is not static: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-23/appeals-court-finds-fbi-did-violate-rights-of-some-beverly-hills-safe-deposit-box-holders https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-23/appeals-... https://archive.is/RnU68 https://archive.is/RnU68