| ▲ | moduspol 3 hours ago | |
A third party giving an indication as to where my phone might be is not comparable to having my house searched by soldiers. Though again, making no judgment as to whether or not it should be allowed. I just think it should be a law, and not casting modern values on the 1700s era founders' words. | ||
| ▲ | jacquesm 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
Oh, absolutely. But the general idea here is that just because it can be done without inconveniencing you should not really make a difference: there were no such things as databases and remote monitoring in those days unless you want to equate some written record in the physical possession of the authorities as a 'search of your person', which it clearly would not be. So this tech angle opens up all kinds of cans of worms (scale, speed, scope to name a few) and the founders whose words are holy had absolutely no way to anticipate this. If they had I'm fairly sure they would have had something reasonable to be said about it, those were pretty smart guys and they seem to have had the right intent on safeguarding the country for as far as they could look ahead. I'm also pretty sure they would be 100% horrified by what it has become. So yes, it should be law. The US supreme court however does not make laws (or at least, they shouldn't be), they interpret the constitution. And the US constitution is well overdue for a more tech aware version, it's just that with the lawmakers apparently in the pockets of the tech billionaires I think that the chances of such an overhaul approach zero. | ||