| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 5 hours ago |
| > We need to amend the constitution to guarantee our privacy. It should be a fundamental right. As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee - that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The challenge is that courts repeatedly and routinely support and protect the government in it's continual, blatant violation of our 4A protections. This has allowed governments at every level to build out the most pervasive surveillance system in human history - which has just been waiting for a cruelty-centric autocrat to take control of it. And for the most part, we have both parties + news orgs to thank for this. They've largely been united in supporting all the steps toward this outcome. |
|
| ▲ | GeekyBear 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > As far as government intrusion into our privacy, it's addressed by the 4th Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects and that our rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46329186 Clearly, those protections have already been violated. |
| |
| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. Clearly, those protections have already been violated. Absolutely. And to keep court-sanctioned violations from getting challenged, a state can utilize a number of tactics to shroud the methods in secrecy. This makes it very difficult for the violated to show standing in a challenge. The state has nearly every possible advantage in leveraging gov power against the public. | |
| ▲ | gruez 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >The Pennsylvania High Court recently ruled that the Pennsylvania local police don't need a warrant to access your search history. How does this work? Does that mean if Pennsylvania police ask google nicely for it, then google isn't breaking the law in complying? Or that Google has to hand over the information even without a warrant? |
|
|
| ▲ | j-bos 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects. |
| |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities who are more than happy to consent away their access into our effects. Do you mean those who rent their homes? I rented for a long time. I bought a house. None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself. I guess a credit union owns the mortgage, but they haven't and won't sell it. To those who will jump to disagree with me about the credit union selling my mortgage: they won't. They don't engage in that market, never have. | | |
| ▲ | j-bos 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Renters are one (large) category. No wasn't referring to mortgaged houses, iiuc those belong to the owner, the lender merely maintains certain rights to reposses in the case of a default. I was more referring to the average US resident or American who agrees to broad terms and conditions with, their ISP, Microsoft 1 drive, Roomba of the year, microphoned smart TV, email provider, cell service provider, etc. Many of which are essential for navigating modern society. | |
| ▲ | DebugDruid 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think he meant things like his personal notes and files stored in an app like Evernote, which law enforcement can request copies of. I don't like the idea of someone reading my private notes... | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Me either. You can write them down on paper. If we all acknowledge that the internet is a beautiful disaster that shan’t be trusted, which it always has been and always will be, we can all collectively get over ourselves about privacy on the internet. “Hey world I went overseas for vacation/holiday! I cooked this amazing dinner! I’m cheating on my SO using an online chat app!” Maybe stop doing all 3 of those things. I can’t tell you how liberating it’s been since I got off all social media in ~2008. It’s super easy to be very private if you so choose. Having any kind of internet presence is a voluntary sacrifice of privacy. |
| |
| ▲ | shkkmo 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > None of my house, papers, or effects are owned by anyone but myself. Do you self host your own email? No? Those are "papers" that your email hosting provider can consent to providing law enforcement access to without a warrant. Do you use search engines? Your search history is in the same boat with the search engine company. Don't use a VPN? All of your internet traffic is in the same boat with your ISP You use a VPN? All your internet traffic is in the same boat with the VPN. The list goes on and on. It is almost certainly true that some company has private information about you that they can turn over without a warrant. | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | You forgot “houses” there, boss. | | |
| ▲ | squigz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You forgot to respond to anything except the "houses" part of this. It's obvious what GP and others are saying - that the concept of things like "papers" and "effects" are no longer as concrete as they used to be. What used to be physical letters stored in one's home are now emails stored on any number of servers. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | | |
| ▲ | shkkmo 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Amazon's echo and other such IoT devices do extend this to "houses" but isn't quite as ubiquitous. | | |
| ▲ | irishcoffee 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | My house, papers, and effects aren’t not tied to whatever you’re calling out about the internet, not in the sense you’re insinuating. You’re conflating ideas to make a point. I admire the effort, you’re just not correct. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The other challenge is that in the modern era the houses, papers, and effects of most people have been partially signed off to corporate entities There are two issues here, each harms us on it's own and both are intertwined toward our detriment. The first is the deeply problematic 3rd Party Doctrine with established that we lose our rights when a 3rd party has control over our private content/information. What few stipulations there are in the precedent are routinely ignored or twisted by the courts (ex:voluntarily given). This allows governments to wholly ignore the 4th amendment altogether. The second is the utter lack of meaningful, well written privacy laws that should exist to protect individuals from corporate misuse and exploitation of our personal and private data. And even worse than Governments willfully violating our privacy rights (thanks to countless courts) and worse than corporations ceaseless leveraging our personal data against us - is that both (of every size) now openly collaborate to violate our privacy in every possible way they can. |
|
