3 ms·
Whether or not that turns out to be true, I still don't care for Rayiner's argument. Attorney-client privilege is also older than the Constitution, and the fra
by ScottBurson 11y ago
Whether or not that turns out to be true, I still don't care for Rayiner's argument. Attorney-client privilege is also older than the Constitution, and the framers didn't see fit to mention it here either. I think their intent was to get the broad outlines right and let future generations hash out such details.
In keeping with that intent, the phrase "their papers and effects" is not precisely defined. I think it's up to us to hash out the appropriate meaning for our day and age. Pace Rayiner, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to imagine that that phrase was not necessarily intended to encompass only papers and effects that happen to be within one's house.
- rayiner 11y agoAttorney-client privilege isn't a Constitutional right, it's just an evidentiary privilege. And it can be lost by disclosure to third parties. Moreover, you're glossing over the fact that much of the information held by third parties doesn't fit within any conception of "your papers and effects." Even if we assume that your Google Docs are covered, what about information like your facebook friends? Those database records linking you to other facebook users aren't your documents, they're Facebook's.