Hacker News Reader

Comment by devmunchies | Hacker News Reader

That could go to the supreme court, maybe violates the 4th 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"

meaning, I got the right to secure my sh*t.

View on HN

> I got the right to secure my sh*t

I don't know if you've noticed, but the Supreme Court routinely flouts long-held interpretations of statute for nakedly ideological reasons. Rights don't mean anything if the government isn't willing to grant them, unfortunately. I would not bet on this court preserving a right to encryption as you describe it.

Great, but this news item is about the government of the USA demanding rights over the personal data of people in other countries. Not being citizens, the US govt considers them lesser people with no Constitutional protection.

I was responding to "now the US government demands not to use modern encryption".

Basically the same right is in the human rights convention, which has no caveats about citizenship and to which the US is a signatory.

If nothing else, it definitely violates the spirit of the second amendment. My digital self should be as secure and protected as my physical brain under the eyes of law.

Citizens of other countries have no rights under the US constitution.

It's more complicated than that. They have many rights inside our border. Outside our border I'm not sure. Web search found https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/constitutional-rig...

That's true about rights inside the US border, but in context, this thread was talking about non-US citizens in their home countries when said countries are being pressured by the US government.

I could have been clearer there. I can see why you replied as such.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com