4 ms·
I'm really not that interested in what the law says. The law often says horrible, stupid things. I was criticizing the OP's assertion that the policy "made sens
by glesica 13y ago
I'm really not that interested in what the law says. The law often says horrible, stupid things. I was criticizing the OP's assertion that the policy "made sense". It does not make sense unless you also believe that it is acceptable for the government to snoop into your life through other means, using situations in which you have trusted a third party against you.
- mpyne 13y agoWell that's just it, the reason that the previous laws were passed to increase privacy controls was in response to the realization that the law as it stood at the time permitted those privacy violations that people found unacceptable. The law should conform to what's best for society but you need to understand where the law is not best for society before you can understand where to change it. The whole reason OP gave that the DOJ policy "makes sense" is because there's not actually 4th Amendment protection for this case. And he's right, so don't shoot the messenger, he's telling you what needs to be fixed in order to restore privacy controls closer to what we envision as ideal. And that is important because a government that can affect things around the world does not run on "expectation", it runs on the law. You can complain until you're blue in the face about how the government is violating your expectation of privacy.... or you can fix the law, as was done in 1934, 1968, 1986, and many more times in between.