3 ms·
The "Third Party doctrine" is a blatantly unconstitutional power grab. It was originally controversially applied to a person's transactions with a bank, and th
by gowld 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo agoDoes it apply to safe-deposit boxes?
- namibj 11mo agoI'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 11mo agoThey 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