4 ms·
The parent is referencing the third party doctrine, which the Supreme Court has ruled on. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland http:/
by berberous 13y ago
The parent is referencing the third party doctrine, which the Supreme Court has ruled on. For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland
Of course, there is growing chorus of voices that believe the 3rd party doctrine needs to change, including comments by Justice Sotomayor in the recent US v. Jones case, which I've quoted elsewhere in this thread and are worth reading to get a sense of how some members of the current Supreme Court may vote if and when the Court decides to hear these NSA cases.
- pavpanchekha 13y agoYou are correct, both in interpreting me and in providing valuable context to the discussion. My only point was that people who I would a priori believe to be intelligent, reasonable, and competent have found the 3rd-party doctrine valid. They may not have been "right", in whatever sense I mean that, but they are not a priori wrong, which many of our ancestor comments seem to be assuming.