3 ms·

That is a controversial opinion, infortunately held by many in government (people whose unreasonable claims are the very matter the Constitution is designed to

by Evbn 14y ago

That is a controversial opinion, infortunately held by many in government (people whose unreasonable claims are the very matter the Constitution is designed to protect against) and repeating it is tantamount to propaganda, as it pushes people to change their expectations of privacy, which would then be abused by the Executive branch of government. Please stop paraphrasing abuses as though they are acceptable.

rayiner 14y ago
It's not really a controversial opinion, it's a fairly straightforward application of 4th amendment principles. There is nothing propagandist or unreasonable about pointing out that the 4th amendment has never protected information freely handed over to private third parties. The Constitution doesn't always protect everything we think should be protected. The language of the 4th amendment clearly refers to the privacy rights of a person in his person and his personality. Extrapolating from there to documents he sends in cleartext through potentially numerous intermediaries is quite a stretch. Despite the fiction, e-mail isn't, at the protocol level, appreciably more private than leaving little notes to people tucked under park benches.
- Evbn 14y ago
  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak I certainly don't expect my mail carrier to hold my envelopes up to a lightbulb to decode the contents of my letters. Nor do I expect Delta to copy and distribute the documents in my briefcase when I put it in the cargo hold. The fourth amendment protects my papers and effects, not only when they are on my person.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    That case is precedent only in the 6th circuit. It is not the law in the rest of the country. As for your mail carrier: that's different, the postal service is affiliated with the government. Also, while you may not expect Delta to copy and distribute your documents when you put them in the cargo hold, that has nothing to do with the 4th amendment. The Bill of Rights is only a restraint on federal and state governments, not on private parties.

by Evbn 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

It's not really a controversial opinion, it's a fairly straightforward application of 4th amendment principles. There is nothing propagandist or unreasonable about pointing out that the 4th amendment has never protected information freely handed over to private third parties. The Constitution doesn't always protect everything we think should be protected. The language of the 4th amendment clearly refers to the privacy rights of a person in his person and his personality. Extrapolating from there to documents he sends in cleartext through potentially numerous intermediaries is quite a stretch. Despite the fiction, e-mail isn't, at the protocol level, appreciably more private than leaving little notes to people tucked under park benches.

Evbn 14y ago
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak I certainly don't expect my mail carrier to hold my envelopes up to a lightbulb to decode the contents of my letters. Nor do I expect Delta to copy and distribute the documents in my briefcase when I put it in the cargo hold. The fourth amendment protects my papers and effects, not only when they are on my person.
- rayiner 14y ago
  That case is precedent only in the 6th circuit. It is not the law in the rest of the country. As for your mail carrier: that's different, the postal service is affiliated with the government. Also, while you may not expect Delta to copy and distribute your documents when you put them in the cargo hold, that has nothing to do with the 4th amendment. The Bill of Rights is only a restraint on federal and state governments, not on private parties.