4 ms·

The constitution was meant to be a living document. That is why it is amenable. Also the idea that the framers could have seen anything like digital data coll

by bargl 11y ago

The constitution was meant to be a living document. That is why it is amenable. Also the idea that the framers could have seen anything like digital data collection is preposterous. Just because they had records doesn't mean they had any sort of access to the monitoring of your documents like we do today. The scale just want there. There is an episode on true detective where one of the detectives goes through old case files. He has stacks of then and has to search them onelaw at a time. Compare that to a key word search or a elastic search. Could the third party law apply to Dropbox or Google drive. Those are my documents, but stored by a third party. I sure hope warrants are needed for officers to go through my files on Google servers. We need to look at the constitution with new eyes and re work it for a digital age. Sorry for any Grammer issues I'm on my phone.

rayiner 11y ago
So amend it. Don't create a privacy right out of whole cloth. Respect for a court's authority comes from the premise that they're at least somewhat neutral arbiters of the words on the page. When legal interpretations become divorced from the text, that undermines the legitimacy of the courts. Re: Google docs. Third party doctrine definitely should apply. If a Google engineer doesn't need a warrant or your permission to dig through your files on Google's servers, they should be fair game for a subpoena compelling them to turn over those documents. No different than how subpoenas can compel accountants to disclosure financial documents pertaining to their clients.
- nickodell 11y ago
  >Re: Google docs. Third party doctrine definitely should apply. If a Google engineer doesn't need a warrant or your permission to dig through your files on Google's servers, they should be fair game for a subpoena compelling them to turn over those documents. Well, individual engineers working for Google can't access the files of customers, partly because of incidents in the past where Google employees abused this access. Does that alter how the law should treat them?

by bargl 11y ago

rayiner 11y ago

So amend it. Don't create a privacy right out of whole cloth. Respect for a court's authority comes from the premise that they're at least somewhat neutral arbiters of the words on the page. When legal interpretations become divorced from the text, that undermines the legitimacy of the courts. Re: Google docs. Third party doctrine definitely should apply. If a Google engineer doesn't need a warrant or your permission to dig through your files on Google's servers, they should be fair game for a subpoena compelling them to turn over those documents. No different than how subpoenas can compel accountants to disclosure financial documents pertaining to their clients.

nickodell 11y ago
>Re: Google docs. Third party doctrine definitely should apply. If a Google engineer doesn't need a warrant or your permission to dig through your files on Google's servers, they should be fair game for a subpoena compelling them to turn over those documents. Well, individual engineers working for Google can't access the files of customers, partly because of incidents in the past where Google employees abused this access. Does that alter how the law should treat them?