this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
339 points (86.6% liked)

Technology

59174 readers
2142 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 37 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Spotlight7573@lemmy.world 20 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.