3 ms·
The OP is (mostly) a sober analysis of the constitutional issues raised by automatic mass surveillance. Whether one agrees or disagrees, it's (relatively) high-
by gruseom 13y ago
The OP is (mostly) a sober analysis of the constitutional issues raised by automatic mass surveillance. Whether one agrees or disagrees, it's (relatively) high-quality content that an informed author put some serious effort into. As far as Snowden articles go it is surely in the upper percentiles of HN-appropriateness. How about we follow its lead here and focus on the content [1]?
The author's main point is that the Supreme Court has interpreted the word "reasonable" in the Fourth Amendment ("unreasonable searches and seizures") to mean "what ordinary citizens find reasonable". In other words, the meaning of the constitution here is supposed to fluctuate with public opinion. That's interesting, and something I've never heard before. Is this a standard view? Or has the author improvised it?
[1] Does not count: lurid speculation about what the government would like to do to Snowden; blatant trolls that degrade the discussion intentionally.
- tptacek 13y agoI think one probably wants to be careful about phrases like "supposed to fluctuate", because it's a stretch to say that the framers wrote the 4th Amendment expecting technology and social mores to continually redefine the meaning of the 4th Amendment over time. It's often more profitable to examine what precise concern animated the language and then project that concern across time. Another way to look at the "reasonableness" requirement is that it's a deliberate constitutional punt to the judiciary; the word "reasonable" begs for judicial interpretation. But no, I don't think the author of this post invented that interpretation of the 4th Amendment, and I think that interpretation leads to a sensible place in these circumstances.