Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism
by autoexec on Tuesday July 25, 2023 @12:36AM
(#36857946)
We've seen example after example of the Fourth Amendment being stopped all over with zero consequences. Why bother arguing over possible edge cases (and I personally don't see any reason online communications wouldn't be covered) when there are no meaningful consequences for even the most cut and dry violations. Like, why argue the finer points of a right that we effectively don't have?
Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism
by skybrian on Tuesday July 25, 2023 @12:52AM
(#36858034)
In a large country, I think it could be true that there are many violations of a rule, and at the same time, the rule is often enforced and is doing some good.
I haven’t researched it, though.
As for what’s mainstream American, people disagree. Historically, we’re a pretty unruly people. Still are, sometimes. But here is the Fourth Amendment:
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(Emphasis added.) You can argue about whether that should also apply to secure online communications, but the idea that there are compromises between state power and individual rights is pretty fundamental to US law.