3 ms·
Right. Our current guarantees of privacy are already well beyond what the Constitution explicitly sets out (which, strictly read, only covers persons and things
by potatolicious 13y ago
Right. Our current guarantees of privacy are already well beyond what the Constitution explicitly sets out (which, strictly read, only covers persons and things).
I think what rayiner is saying is that in order for SCOTUS to declare these internet communications protected, it either needs some extraordinary rationale, or more simply/easily the bulk of the populace needs to believe these communications are protected.
If the typical person believes these communications are private, then this falls under the reasonable expectation of privacy legal test already accepted by SCOTUS.
- xerophtye 13y agoNo, i think what he is pointing at is that privacy is more than just "dont wire tap my calls", "dont read my private message". He says that privacy is much broader than that. I dont want websites tracking what i do. I dont want google saving my search history. Even though i (and many others) put some stuff public (or viewable to friends of friends etc), I dont want anyone using all my public information to stalk me and main a profile of me etc. The list can go on and on. His point is that the law shouldn't extend to things explicitly labelled as "private" or "password-protected". It extends to the use of my public info. And thus we need more work here to come to a consensus what is acceptable and what is not.