3 ms·

I've reached the conclusion that in order to receive constitutional protection of "my papers", they need to be "on paper". So, I essentially don't put anything

I've reached the conclusion that in order to receive constitutional protection of "my papers", they need to be "on paper". So, I essentially don't put anything on the internet, or even on my computer, unless I'm comfortable with it being on the internet, permanently (meaning until my great-grandchildren retire, in 120 years). for reference, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I would like to think that "papers" in the text would also refer to electronic documents, but alas that seems to not be the case. This is one of those cases where the saying "In Theory, Practice and Theory are the same, but in practice they're not." seems to fit.

rayiner 13y ago
You're setting up and knocking down a strawman. Its not a matter of electronic documents versus paper. A USB key in your desk drawer is protected as much as a stack of paper documents. This was not a controversial issue. Courts have treated electronic documents uniformly with paper ones for a long time with little fanfare. The relevant issue is where these documents are located, and whether it's reasonable to have a privacy interest in documents transmitted in plain text over the internet. As an analogy: if you leave your physical papers in someone's garage, you cannot invoke the 4th amendment if the police find those documents otherwise lawfully. It's not reasonable for you to claim a privacy interest in documents over which someone else has unrestricted control. That's the nature of an electronic document "in the cloud." Countless people have access to that document, at the service provider and also at intermediate routing nodes. If you use Google or Facebook, that information is even routinely scanned for advertising purposes. That's the nature of the internet. It's built on routing plain text information between unrelated nodes. Treating this information that is physically not private as "logically private" is a social fiction based on trusting service providers. That's the question courts are faced with. Not whether electronic documents enjoy 4th amendment protection (they clearly do), but whether to indulge the fiction that documents which are as a factual matter not private should nonetheless be treated as private for 4th amendment purposes. There might be good reason to do that. There might also be good reason to stop short of fully endorsing the current status quo, and requiring service providers to make certain privacy guarantees in order for documents on their systems to enjoy 4th amendment protections.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  How do I know my computer is not compromised? How do I know the files on my cell phone are not compromised? We've already established the NSA is not acting within the constraints of law. That's what Snowden revealed. One cannot rely on the law (the constitution or any other) to gain safety from government spying.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    > We've already established the NSA is not acting within the constraints of law. What we've established is that the NSA is acting enough within the constraints of the law that different courts disagree as to the legality of its actions.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      If I drive the speed limit for 300 miles on the freeway, but I speed on the last 10 miles, and a policeman gives me a ticket during the last 10 miles, can I say: "Officer, I was following the law most of the time, so it's ok?" Acting within the constraint of the law means always acting within the constraint of the law, not just when it's convenient.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        It's more like driving in a 60 mph zone and multiple officers with radar guns that disagree whether you were driving 59 or 65 mph.
- thenerdfiles 13y ago
  If someone let's you borrow their desk, you place it in your home. Does that person have the right to enter your home and use that desk whenever that person sees fit? Oh, I forgot that I left my [really important item] in that desk I let you borrow, and your backdoor was unlocked. Just thought I'd come in and grab it. What if the person sends their best friend over to retrieve said important item? Could this person ask a police officer to retrieve it (say the person is handicapped)? So we're borrowing these "cloud desks". Does that mean the stuff I've placed in the desk is also up for grabs? Under your analogy, not only can they retrieve the item from the desk, but they also get to know all sorts of things about how I personally used the desk. I'm sorry, but I don't like it when you leave the drawers of my cloud desk open like that. So, I took a picture of it so I can keep track of its use. Now, would you agree to a borrow of a desk if you are expected to not only maintain its quality of state, but also it is that you are expected to record your every interaction with it? They're recording it for you — fair enough, but is the loaner permitted to share those photos with other people? When does it end? So the loaner isn't a government. But extrapolating from this: The Fourth Amendment gives us a clear answer to this question. Sure, it's not private, but that is beside the point. How I use the desk, technically, is not private, but something stops the loaner from telling the entire neighborhood about how I used the desk. That something is unwritten, often described in terms of "the rules of decorum" or simply: it's not worth it. Thank Goodness Our Founding Fathers Decided to Write Something Down that Explicitly Answers this Question — When does it end? — in an Explicit Context that Can Be Governed. Heck, by this Decision, our government can share our metadata with FOREIGN ENEMIES at their whimsy based on international agreements that statistically legislate over terror. This Decision just makes us a metastatistic, ultimately collatoral damage of a digital war. They're exacerbating this institutionalized equivocation exactly so that they can cultivate our consumerist behavior and behavior as content producers for their own financial gain. They're exploiting exactly the fact that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the digital age. They're doing this on purpose: ooops sry i didn't know what an internat wuz im just too old i guess They're not doing their due diligence to correctly interpret, adapt, and apply these laws. And the Judicial Branch is folding to monied interest indirectly.

rayiner 13y ago

You're setting up and knocking down a strawman. Its not a matter of electronic documents versus paper. A USB key in your desk drawer is protected as much as a stack of paper documents. This was not a controversial issue. Courts have treated electronic documents uniformly with paper ones for a long time with little fanfare. The relevant issue is where these documents are located, and whether it's reasonable to have a privacy interest in documents transmitted in plain text over the internet. As an analogy: if you leave your physical papers in someone's garage, you cannot invoke the 4th amendment if the police find those documents otherwise lawfully. It's not reasonable for you to claim a privacy interest in documents over which someone else has unrestricted control. That's the nature of an electronic document "in the cloud." Countless people have access to that document, at the service provider and also at intermediate routing nodes. If you use Google or Facebook, that information is even routinely scanned for advertising purposes. That's the nature of the internet. It's built on routing plain text information between unrelated nodes. Treating this information that is physically not private as "logically private" is a social fiction based on trusting service providers. That's the question courts are faced with. Not whether electronic documents enjoy 4th amendment protection (they clearly do), but whether to indulge the fiction that documents which are as a factual matter not private should nonetheless be treated as private for 4th amendment purposes. There might be good reason to do that. There might also be good reason to stop short of fully endorsing the current status quo, and requiring service providers to make certain privacy guarantees in order for documents on their systems to enjoy 4th amendment protections.

chris_mahan 13y ago
How do I know my computer is not compromised? How do I know the files on my cell phone are not compromised? We've already established the NSA is not acting within the constraints of law. That's what Snowden revealed. One cannot rely on the law (the constitution or any other) to gain safety from government spying.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > We've already established the NSA is not acting within the constraints of law. What we've established is that the NSA is acting enough within the constraints of the law that different courts disagree as to the legality of its actions.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    If I drive the speed limit for 300 miles on the freeway, but I speed on the last 10 miles, and a policeman gives me a ticket during the last 10 miles, can I say: "Officer, I was following the law most of the time, so it's ok?" Acting within the constraint of the law means always acting within the constraint of the law, not just when it's convenient.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      It's more like driving in a 60 mph zone and multiple officers with radar guns that disagree whether you were driving 59 or 65 mph.
thenerdfiles 13y ago
If someone let's you borrow their desk, you place it in your home. Does that person have the right to enter your home and use that desk whenever that person sees fit? Oh, I forgot that I left my [really important item] in that desk I let you borrow, and your backdoor was unlocked. Just thought I'd come in and grab it. What if the person sends their best friend over to retrieve said important item? Could this person ask a police officer to retrieve it (say the person is handicapped)? So we're borrowing these "cloud desks". Does that mean the stuff I've placed in the desk is also up for grabs? Under your analogy, not only can they retrieve the item from the desk, but they also get to know all sorts of things about how I personally used the desk. I'm sorry, but I don't like it when you leave the drawers of my cloud desk open like that. So, I took a picture of it so I can keep track of its use. Now, would you agree to a borrow of a desk if you are expected to not only maintain its quality of state, but also it is that you are expected to record your every interaction with it? They're recording it for you — fair enough, but is the loaner permitted to share those photos with other people? When does it end? So the loaner isn't a government. But extrapolating from this: The Fourth Amendment gives us a clear answer to this question. Sure, it's not private, but that is beside the point. How I use the desk, technically, is not private, but something stops the loaner from telling the entire neighborhood about how I used the desk. That something is unwritten, often described in terms of "the rules of decorum" or simply: it's not worth it. Thank Goodness Our Founding Fathers Decided to Write Something Down that Explicitly Answers this Question — When does it end? — in an Explicit Context that Can Be Governed. Heck, by this Decision, our government can share our metadata with FOREIGN ENEMIES at their whimsy based on international agreements that statistically legislate over terror. This Decision just makes us a metastatistic, ultimately collatoral damage of a digital war. They're exacerbating this institutionalized equivocation exactly so that they can cultivate our consumerist behavior and behavior as content producers for their own financial gain. They're exploiting exactly the fact that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the digital age. They're doing this on purpose: ooops sry i didn't know what an internat wuz im just too old i guess They're not doing their due diligence to correctly interpret, adapt, and apply these laws. And the Judicial Branch is folding to monied interest indirectly.