4 ms·

I'm surprised no one has put the feet to the fire of those that argue this and ask them if it's ok for police to : 'walk into your house, take pictures of all y

I'm surprised no one has put the feet to the fire of those that argue this and ask them if it's ok for police to : 'walk into your house, take pictures of all your possessions and copy all your documents at any given time' and say it's not a warrant because they aren't going to sift through it later. It's unfortunate that there is such a disconnect between real and virtual policies. People who can't handle the abstraction shouldn't be making decisions regarding it.

jacques_chester 13y ago
This is an interesting line of argument that I hope someone puts before the court. Previously, search in a legal sense combined two elements that we've always blurred together: 1. Collection of data 2. Intepretation of the data. So when a human searches, they are comingled. Light enters the eye, is processed into images in the brain, is elevated into consciousness and draws connections in the front cortex and elsewhere. But an automated system can do it in two stages. The pictures could be recorded and never analysed. The question is whether the act of searching includes both data gathering and analysis as inseparable parts or whether they are seperable. And if they are seperable, where does the search reside: in the data, or the analysis? Reversing your analogy, the NSA approach is like the police having housefly-sized drones in every house, keeping HD video of everything that goes on. Most of the time, nobody sees it. The data is gathered but not analysed. Is that search?
- daegloe 13y ago
  I've always been under the impression that the legal definition of search and seizure requires "examination."
btilly 13y ago
That is clearly not OK because the 4th specifically mentions that your house is protected. The issue here is indiscriminate copying of data from third parties through whom your information traveled. Under the government theory it is not a search (because nobody has looked at it), it is not a seizure (because you still have your data), and your person, house, papers and effects were not touched. Therefore it is an activity that lies outside the protection of the Constitutional phrase, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

jacques_chester 13y ago

This is an interesting line of argument that I hope someone puts before the court. Previously, search in a legal sense combined two elements that we've always blurred together: 1. Collection of data 2. Intepretation of the data. So when a human searches, they are comingled. Light enters the eye, is processed into images in the brain, is elevated into consciousness and draws connections in the front cortex and elsewhere. But an automated system can do it in two stages. The pictures could be recorded and never analysed. The question is whether the act of searching includes both data gathering and analysis as inseparable parts or whether they are seperable. And if they are seperable, where does the search reside: in the data, or the analysis? Reversing your analogy, the NSA approach is like the police having housefly-sized drones in every house, keeping HD video of everything that goes on. Most of the time, nobody sees it. The data is gathered but not analysed. Is that search?

daegloe 13y ago
I've always been under the impression that the legal definition of search and seizure requires "examination."

btilly 13y ago

That is clearly not OK because the 4th specifically mentions that your house is protected. The issue here is indiscriminate copying of data from third parties through whom your information traveled. Under the government theory it is not a search (because nobody has looked at it), it is not a seizure (because you still have your data), and your person, house, papers and effects were not touched. Therefore it is an activity that lies outside the protection of the Constitutional phrase, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...