Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment rights, judge rules [pdf]

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by bluGill on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @05:06PM (#42000311)

I don't care nearly as much about the 4th amendment when the person is guilty. I care a lot when the person is innocent. Searches of innocent people is costly for the innocent person and so we require warrants to ensure such searches are minimized (even though most warrants are approved, the act of getting on forces the police to be careful). If a search was completely not costly to innocent I wouldn't be against them, but there are many ways a search that finds nothing is costly to the innocent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by BobaFloutist on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @07:44PM (#42001857)

If the average person is illegally searched, but turns out to be innocent, what are the chances they bother to take the police to court? It's not like they're going to be jailed or convicted, so many people would prefer to just try to move on with their life rather than spend thousands of dollars litigating a case in the hopes of a payout that could easily be denied if the judge decides the cops were too stupid to understand the law rather than maliciously breaking it.

Because of that, precedent is largely going to be set with guilty parties, but will apply equally to violations of the rights of the innocent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by bluGill on Thursday October 31, 2024 @07:35AM (#42005753)

There is the important question.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Google's TOS doesn't eliminate a user's Fourth Amendment ... by rangestransform on Wednesday October 30, 2024 @05:46PM (#42000762)

I want guilty people to go free if their 4th amendment rights are violated, thats the only way to ensure police are meticulous about protecting peoples rights

[ Parent | on HN ]