3 ms·
Mosaic theory doesn't go that far, but in the age of widespread statistical inference, it is an important development. Generally speaking, the public is entitl
by mikecb 11y ago
Mosaic theory doesn't go that far, but in the age of widespread statistical inference, it is an important development.
Generally speaking, the public is entitled to all evidence. Certain rights, such as the Fifth amendment, protect you from being compelled to testify against yourself, but you have no right to prevent, nor does anyone else have the right to refuse, to testify against or about you, except for a very small and declining set of common law privileges, and even those only apply in certain circumstances.
- a3n 11y agoBut the 4th does qualify with "unreasonable," and dragnets without "specific" suspicions are unreasonable and unconstitutional.
- mikecb 11y agoIndeed, and there's where we need mosaic the most. As it stands, the collection of this type of data (Smith) is not even a search, and therefore the court does not even consider whether or not it was reasonable. It just stops there. If it were found to be a search, it might still come in, but perhaps for a different reason. There's a great cartoon, which contains this awesome flowchart: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2256