Re:FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
by sjy on Sunday August 29, 2021 @12:16AM
(#28344065)
Katz v. United States held the opposite: “The Government’s activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner’s words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a ‘search and seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”
More recent decisions suggest that the third party doctrine, according to which there is no legitimate expectation of privacy in information voluntarily turned over to third parties, is unlikely to apply to private messages on Facebook:
Re:FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
by otterley on Sunday August 29, 2021 @12:50AM
(#28344272)
Crap, my bad. You’re right. Clearly I misremembered the case and should have reviewed it first. I withdraw my point about that.
As you said, Katz did say that we do have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to person-to-person communications. However, that has no bearing on whether the carrier can or cannot block the communication. That still hinges on whether the carrier is a common carrier.
Re:FB messenger silently censoring links, claims they were sent
by lmilcin on Sunday August 29, 2021 @03:44AM
(#28344951)
I would suggest blocking and selectively editing messages is different.
Conversation on messenger is multiple messages, blocking would be preventing entire conversation. Removing some messages selectively changes meaning of other messages
Despite phone companies being common carriers (and thus being required to carry communications without censoring them), the Supreme Court has made it clear that people should have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they relay communications through a pay phone. The reasoning was that you give up your right to privacy when you involve a third party to your conversation. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
So the two can coexist.
Only common carriers are forced to carry speech unimpeded, regardless of its content. Expectation of privacy is irrelevant to common carrier status. The former is about whether it can be intercepted. The latter is about whether it can be impeded.