5 ms·

I've never understood this. Why can't the fourth amendment follow contracts? Why can't I trust my location data to AT&T and no one else? Third parties are nece

I've never understood this. Why can't the fourth amendment follow contracts? Why can't I trust my location data to AT&T and no one else? Third parties are necessary for most communication. It's ridiculous that sharing something with a contracted service provider for a specific purpose is legally identical to publishing it on the open internet.

rayiner 13y ago
> Why can't the fourth amendment follow contracts? Why can't I trust my location data to AT&T and no one else? The 4th amendment protects people and places, not information. You have a right to privacy in your person and your house, but not on information you entrust to AT&T because you have no expectation of privacy on AT&T's premises. > Third parties are necessary for most communication. The 4th amendment only indirectly protects communications. It was mainly designed to keep police from breaking down your door to search for items you hadn't paid import duties on. The idea that it protects bits flowing through other peoples' wires is itself a bit of a stretch. The first time wire-tapping came up in front of the Supreme Court (in the 1920's), it was found to not require a warrant under the 4th amendment. After all, it wasn't your apartment being tapped, but some location in the telephone company's office.
- kbolino 13y ago
  Why does the Fourth Amendment specifically and additionally call out "papers and effects" when in your view "persons and houses" is all it actually protects?
arjunnarayan 13y ago
No tight philosophical reason. It's just that historically, the court has held that there is no expectation of privacy once you share it with a third party (as long as they get it via subpoena from the third party). Is this a good idea? Personally, I don't think so. But US law works on precedent, and the 4th amendment was written when there was no concept of privacy that wasn't spatially determined. That is why it says you have a right "to be secure in their [your] persons, houses, papers, and effects". Yet another example where the constitution is woefully outdated and obsolete, but if you say that you get skinned alive because it was immaculately conceived by gods, and we are unfit to alter or improve the work of our ancestral giants.
- superuser2 13y ago
  Why are emails and text messages not considered papers? Did SCOTUS decide that "papers" can only mean ink on dead trees?
  - hga 13y ago
    Don't know about text messages, but emails are the logical equivalent of sending postcards. If you except privacy when you don't even hide your words in an envelope you're going to be disappointed.
    - secabeen 13y ago
      Most major providers support opportunistic SSL for server-to-server SMTP connections, and nearly all providers require SSL from the client (either HTTPS or SMTPS/IMAPS). In that case, would that show an expectation of privacy that would allow 4th amendment protection for email contents in-transit?
      - rayiner 13y ago
        No, because the e-mail providers see and store the message in plain text.
        hga 13y ago
        To further analogize this to postcards, no one's worried about your mail being seen when it's stuffed in a mailbag that's riding in a truck that the USPS takes some care to make sure it doesn't get stolen (e.g. always behind lock and key). Using SSL for all the hops between organizations amounts to the same thing.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    No, electronic documents are widely considered to be "papers" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. Your e-mails, sitting on your laptop, are definitely covered by the 4th amendment. The problem comes in when you send that e-mail in clear text over the internet, where a bunch of people at your ISP can see it, where a bunch of people at Google can see it, where a bunch of people at the recipient's ISP can see it, etc. You don't have an expectation of privacy when you take your private information and put it in the hands of others. Whether it's an e-mail or ink on dead trees is irrelevant. If I printed out my e-mails and shipped them to Google, the government would be able to subpoena them without a warrant.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Why can't the fourth amendment follow contracts? It would make conspiracy rather too easy. Right now the number of privileged communication vectors is pretty low - you can talk in confidence to your lawyer, doctor, or cleric about most things and know your secrets are safe. If all contractual relations were privileged law enforcement would become a bit of a nightmare. The founders or succeeding generations of legislators and jurists certainly had the option to justify such arrangements but chose not to.
- superuser2 13y ago
  Strawman. Electronic communications don't need to be fully untouchable like attorney-client privilege, they just need to be untouchable without probable cause. Conspiracies are routinely prosecuted using the results of warranted wiretaps based on probable cause.

rayiner 13y ago

> Why can't the fourth amendment follow contracts? Why can't I trust my location data to AT&T and no one else? The 4th amendment protects people and places, not information. You have a right to privacy in your person and your house, but not on information you entrust to AT&T because you have no expectation of privacy on AT&T's premises. > Third parties are necessary for most communication. The 4th amendment only indirectly protects communications. It was mainly designed to keep police from breaking down your door to search for items you hadn't paid import duties on. The idea that it protects bits flowing through other peoples' wires is itself a bit of a stretch. The first time wire-tapping came up in front of the Supreme Court (in the 1920's), it was found to not require a warrant under the 4th amendment. After all, it wasn't your apartment being tapped, but some location in the telephone company's office.

kbolino 13y ago
Why does the Fourth Amendment specifically and additionally call out "papers and effects" when in your view "persons and houses" is all it actually protects?

arjunnarayan 13y ago

No tight philosophical reason. It's just that historically, the court has held that there is no expectation of privacy once you share it with a third party (as long as they get it via subpoena from the third party). Is this a good idea? Personally, I don't think so. But US law works on precedent, and the 4th amendment was written when there was no concept of privacy that wasn't spatially determined. That is why it says you have a right "to be secure in their [your] persons, houses, papers, and effects". Yet another example where the constitution is woefully outdated and obsolete, but if you say that you get skinned alive because it was immaculately conceived by gods, and we are unfit to alter or improve the work of our ancestral giants.

superuser2 13y ago
Why are emails and text messages not considered papers? Did SCOTUS decide that "papers" can only mean ink on dead trees?
- hga 13y ago
  Don't know about text messages, but emails are the logical equivalent of sending postcards. If you except privacy when you don't even hide your words in an envelope you're going to be disappointed.
  - secabeen 13y ago
    Most major providers support opportunistic SSL for server-to-server SMTP connections, and nearly all providers require SSL from the client (either HTTPS or SMTPS/IMAPS). In that case, would that show an expectation of privacy that would allow 4th amendment protection for email contents in-transit?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      No, because the e-mail providers see and store the message in plain text.
      - hga 13y ago
        To further analogize this to postcards, no one's worried about your mail being seen when it's stuffed in a mailbag that's riding in a truck that the USPS takes some care to make sure it doesn't get stolen (e.g. always behind lock and key). Using SSL for all the hops between organizations amounts to the same thing.
- rayiner 13y ago
  No, electronic documents are widely considered to be "papers" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. Your e-mails, sitting on your laptop, are definitely covered by the 4th amendment. The problem comes in when you send that e-mail in clear text over the internet, where a bunch of people at your ISP can see it, where a bunch of people at Google can see it, where a bunch of people at the recipient's ISP can see it, etc. You don't have an expectation of privacy when you take your private information and put it in the hands of others. Whether it's an e-mail or ink on dead trees is irrelevant. If I printed out my e-mails and shipped them to Google, the government would be able to subpoena them without a warrant.

anigbrowl 13y ago

Why can't the fourth amendment follow contracts? It would make conspiracy rather too easy. Right now the number of privileged communication vectors is pretty low - you can talk in confidence to your lawyer, doctor, or cleric about most things and know your secrets are safe. If all contractual relations were privileged law enforcement would become a bit of a nightmare. The founders or succeeding generations of legislators and jurists certainly had the option to justify such arrangements but chose not to.

superuser2 13y ago
Strawman. Electronic communications don't need to be fully untouchable like attorney-client privilege, they just need to be untouchable without probable cause. Conspiracies are routinely prosecuted using the results of warranted wiretaps based on probable cause.