How are we not suing the ever living shit out of the government for violating peoples 4th ammendment rights? This is a gross violation of the unreasonable search and seizure clause in the constitution.
Third party doctrine for one: the data held by third parties has no expectation of privacy, even if it's about you.
From Wikipedia:
The third-party doctrine is a United States legal doctrine that holds that people who voluntarily give information to third parties—such as banks, phone companies, internet service providers (ISPs), and e-mail servers—have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in that information. A lack of privacy protection allows the United States government to obtain information from third parties without a legal warrant and without otherwise complying with the Fourth Amendment prohibition against search and seizure without probable cause and a judicial search warrant.
Basically the government's argument: if you wanted it to remain private, you wouldn't have given it to someone else.
I'm reality, it's an area of law that desperately needs to be updated.
The problem is that you almost can't function in modern society without having a phone. So their argument is in bad faith, and really should be checked.
Laughs in GDPR
(as an EU citizen)
The same EU that's desperately trying to ban end to end encryption and dictate which certification authorities browsers have to support so they can spy on you better?
It will take someone being brought in on evidence gathered by this method to get it overturned. It would probably wind its way up to the Supreme Court.
And of course, the things they'll be looking for with this will be things that are settled with two bullets to the back of the head and a suicide ruling.
How are we not suing the ever living shit out of the government for violating peoples 4th ammendment rights? This is a gross violation of the unreasonable search and seizure clause in the constitution.
Third party doctrine for one: the data held by third parties has no expectation of privacy, even if it's about you.
From Wikipedia:
Basically the government's argument: if you wanted it to remain private, you wouldn't have given it to someone else.
I'm reality, it's an area of law that desperately needs to be updated.
The problem is that you almost can't function in modern society without having a phone. So their argument is in bad faith, and really should be checked.
Laughs in GDPR
(as an EU citizen)
The same EU that's desperately trying to ban end to end encryption and dictate which certification authorities browsers have to support so they can spy on you better?
It will take someone being brought in on evidence gathered by this method to get it overturned. It would probably wind its way up to the Supreme Court.
And of course, the things they'll be looking for with this will be things that are settled with two bullets to the back of the head and a suicide ruling.
PATRIOT
ACT