3 ms·

I think you mean the fourth amendment (against "unreasonable searches and seizures"). The fourth amendment is certainly the reason these letters are not being

I think you mean the fourth amendment (against "unreasonable searches and seizures"). The fourth amendment is certainly the reason these letters are not being opened. The information inside these letters is private, and not known to the postal service. On the other hand, the address printed on the outside of the letter is possibly public information, and certainly information that the service has access to. One thing I always wonder about in these situations is a duty to keep a "shared secret". Are there situations when we can legally expect a company to fight for our privacy, or are we always relying on their good nature?

pc86 12y ago
> Are there situations when we can legally expect a company to fight for our privacy I think it depends on the definition of "papers, and effects" in 4A (I'm not an attorney so I really don't know the specifics). One could certainly make the argument that under certain circumstances you can disclose information to certain parties while maintaining a reasonable expectation of privacy. I would imagine this is the basis of doctor-patient and attorney-client confidentiality but that's just assumption on my part.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Evidentiary privileges and the 4th amendment interact, but aren't directly related. Obviously doctors and lawyers have a 4th amendment expectation of privacy over their own documents, but you don't have one over their documents. Moreover, they can be compelled to turn over copies of documents they have related to you. That's one of the issues that gets lost in the shuffle: the 4th amendment was written against the backdrop of the almost unlimited power of the common law subpoena. When the government demands a service provider turn over someone's electronic records, that doesn't fall within the 4th amendment (it's not a search), nor does it fall within the 5th (it's not self-incrimination).
schoen 12y ago
The most contested aspect of this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
- repsilat 12y ago
  Thanks, this answers a lot. Reading a bit further, it's interesting that everyone focuses on the legality of the government requesting and receiving information rather than on the legality of the company giving it to them. Can a company that hands over information "without a fight" be sued for a breach of some implicit trust? If not, what about explicit promises or contracts? If at some point the company is not allowed to freely hand over the information, is the government still allowed to receive it in breach of the confidentiality arrangement? And what about companies giving this information to other non-governmental third parties? In a lot of the contracts I've read and signed, companies have explicitly informed me of circumstances in which (and people to whom) my information may be disclosed. What does this imply about people not named, and what is implied by a contract not having such a clause?
  - schoen 12y ago
    I had kind of a related HN thread recently talking about how some contractual provisions can sometimes be unenforceable in courts because the court concludes that they are against public policy. A contractual promise not to testify in court is an example; you will not be able to sue someone who promises not to testify against you and then does so. I'm don't think that that's the end of the analysis for the interaction between contracts and the third party doctrine, though. But I don't know enough to speculate.

pc86 12y ago

> Are there situations when we can legally expect a company to fight for our privacy I think it depends on the definition of "papers, and effects" in 4A (I'm not an attorney so I really don't know the specifics). One could certainly make the argument that under certain circumstances you can disclose information to certain parties while maintaining a reasonable expectation of privacy. I would imagine this is the basis of doctor-patient and attorney-client confidentiality but that's just assumption on my part.

rayiner 12y ago
Evidentiary privileges and the 4th amendment interact, but aren't directly related. Obviously doctors and lawyers have a 4th amendment expectation of privacy over their own documents, but you don't have one over their documents. Moreover, they can be compelled to turn over copies of documents they have related to you. That's one of the issues that gets lost in the shuffle: the 4th amendment was written against the backdrop of the almost unlimited power of the common law subpoena. When the government demands a service provider turn over someone's electronic records, that doesn't fall within the 4th amendment (it's not a search), nor does it fall within the 5th (it's not self-incrimination).

schoen 12y ago

The most contested aspect of this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

repsilat 12y ago
Thanks, this answers a lot. Reading a bit further, it's interesting that everyone focuses on the legality of the government requesting and receiving information rather than on the legality of the company giving it to them. Can a company that hands over information "without a fight" be sued for a breach of some implicit trust? If not, what about explicit promises or contracts? If at some point the company is not allowed to freely hand over the information, is the government still allowed to receive it in breach of the confidentiality arrangement? And what about companies giving this information to other non-governmental third parties? In a lot of the contracts I've read and signed, companies have explicitly informed me of circumstances in which (and people to whom) my information may be disclosed. What does this imply about people not named, and what is implied by a contract not having such a clause?
- schoen 12y ago
  I had kind of a related HN thread recently talking about how some contractual provisions can sometimes be unenforceable in courts because the court concludes that they are against public policy. A contractual promise not to testify in court is an example; you will not be able to sue someone who promises not to testify against you and then does so. I'm don't think that that's the end of the analysis for the interaction between contracts and the third party doctrine, though. But I don't know enough to speculate.