Constitutional rights generally refer to what the government can and cannot do to a person.
In this case it was a private company that broke no US laws as far as I can tell. Why would the constitution apply?
For example, much has been written on HN about how credit card companies essentially control what is acceptable for online content (at least online content that one might pay for). It may be correct as to "the letter of the law" that these companies shouldn't have to abide by freedom of speech or association, but the fact on the ground is that there are nearly no other options if the 4 main CC companies decide they don't want to allow you to take payment (please don't let this devolve into a discussion about crypto...)
The US already recognizes this when it comes to credit bureaus - the 3 major bureaus are highly regulated and the types of information they are allowed to collect, use and share is explicitly detailed. I see no reason why phone companies should get a free pass.
You can be upset that this is happening, and that it is legal, but there are no constitutional rights in play here.
An appeal to authority will only get you so far in an ungoverned state of nature.
And when it comes to non-governmental data collection businesses in the US, we are in just that state. There's no constitution saying we should have any rights to privacy against them. I think we should have that right; but it would take a law to actually make them respect that.
What do you think political organizing and direct action are? There's more to politics than legislation and litigation.
This is a comment on an article about how an international company violated EU law. The US government (the only organization bound by constitutional law) was never involved in any way.
These days large, monopolistic corporations have similar powers, and you don't get any recourse. Imagine getting banned from Google and Facebook/Meta services because they used some some wacky reputation scoring -- you could still live a normal life of a 1780s homesteader, but you're probably not going to live a functioning modern life.
It's a bit disingenuous to argue that the constitution only limits government powers -- which might be true, but that's exactly the problem: the US government has been allowing private companies to become so powerful and ubiquitous that they are exerting undue influence on people's lives even more-so than proper government institutions.
The only thing that apparently seems to prevent this from devolving into a dystopian scenario is personal moral backbone of some founders of these tech companies. It's not hard for me to imagine a much more corrupt world where politicians in Washington routinely emails CEOs of $BigTech and make some backroom deals that only benefits the parties involved. (pretty sure it happens, but it could happen much more often) Given how cozy CEOs of "private companies" and politicians are together, it's really disingenuous to claim that we shouldn't be alarmed when unregulated monopolistic companies are free to do whatever they want because "they aren't the government".
I was going to say that people in 1700s didn't envision "private" companies from being as powerful as governments, but then I remembered the East India Companies of the era. What's the difference of "companies" and "governments" when the functions they perform become indistinguishable?
Hopefully someday, someone will successfully argue that the government _not_ enforcing the constitutional bill of rights in a civil setting is the same as a criminal setting.
What in the Twitter files are people supposed to be upset about? I think I might be missing the proper rubric to fill outraged about it.
[0]https://www.techdirt.com/2023/06/05/twitter-admits-in-court-...
Due process is from the government when they accuse you of a crime. In this case, the government is not attacking your privacy and there are no accusers.
...no? A constitutional right is one established in the constitution or inferred from the language of the constitution. That's it. Maybe in the US you're focused on the rights in respect to your government, but people have other rights. For example, in my country, I have the constitutional right to go on strike, and my employer is forbidden from retaliating. I also have a right to freedom, property, security, and freedom from oppression. Again, no one, neither the government nor my fellow citizens nor corporations can infringe on these rights.
Now, there are indeed federal laws imposed onto the people but those are not in the constitution.
It probably doesn't violate US laws because the US doesn't have Constitutional privacy protections or much in the way of toothy privacy law. But many of us think it should. Before someone replies with 'lobby for changes to the law then,' that's exactly what I'm doing - working to build a sufficiently large constituency for such change that it will be able to exert some political leverage.
I actually don’t think this is something that belongs in the US constitution simply because the constitutional process is slow, and, apparently, open to wild interpretation by the courts. I would love a privacy focused law like GDPR in the US
But if you really want to get specific, I would like for our government to take action based on the recent IG report outlining how they use private companies to gather dirt on us and subvert our constitutional rights. Perhaps they can refer to EU regulations which address similar concerns.
So the constitution only protects your human rights(life, privacy, no discrimination) from the government? in USA you need other laws to protect your rights from other people and companies ?
There is a lot of discussion about the amendments to the US Constitution, but the original US Constitution doesn't even say anything about rights. The amendments are implemented as limitations of the powers of the government.
All of the other legal rights that the US congress grants are just called "laws". For instance, the legal right to be free from racial segregation at a public business is not in the Constitution, it is part of the legal code, alongside other laws that the people (and businesses) have to follow.
The US government doesn't grant any rights. We already have all of them at birth. The government may affirm them but it isn't a higher authority giving anything to anyone.
So-called positive rights are not something you’re born with, as opposed to negative rights, which are things you’re protected from the government taking away.
What legal document defines "all of them" or what is not a right you have ?
You are born with the rights to be President of the US, but the constitution takes it away if you aren't born a US citizen. Before the constitution did that, literally anyone could (all the first presidents of the US weren't born US citizens, for example).
Any right you can imagine, you are born with them. Then some legal document either affirms them, removes them, or ignores them.
Something feels weird, there is no list of all human rights? so is there a right to free internet and a free phone? How can I check if that right exists or not ?
You have the right to privacy and the EU affirms that, some US states affirm it as well.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. (We already have all of them at conception, not merely birth!) Those are the types of rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The government can't revoke them because they are, by nature, God-given and inalienable and don't come from anyone but Him.
Then there are rights which can be granted as concessions from the government, whether it is Federal, State, or other. I'm not sure; perhaps the right to vote is one of these "non God-given" rights because voting itself stems from the nature of democracy and not an inborn trait of mankind. There seems to be the right of privacy, but I'm not sure if this could be described as "God-given"; it's rather a new concept, and Christian doctrine doesn't make a particular pronouncement on whether this is a thing to be protected.
And other entities besides governments can grant rights, of course. If you join a club, you could be granted the right to vote for the board of directors, or the right to attend socials and meetings. I have certain rights as the member of fraternal organizations. Your landlord or HOA has granted you certain rights, of course: the right to use the pool and laundry room are definitely not "God-given" but they are certainly concessions made because you're a paying tenant.
These are the text of them:
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV 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.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
AMENDMENT XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In my country Romania the constitution is much larger, much more rights and obligations are defined but probably because is newer and modern(like it is in the constitution that men and women will be paid the same for same work)
The US is pretty complex, and actually has one of the older governments in the west (Europe included) despite being a relatively new country. One thing to keep in mind is that the US was originally conceived as something much closer to the EU than as it's own country. The US government was originally MUCH more limited, and the individual states had much more power.
In most other places too. The GDPR law is exactly this. It isn’t in the founding document of the EU, it’s a different law to “protect your rights from other people and companies”. This is a good thing: generally you want a government framework document to be relatively static and hard to change for stability reasons, and you want laws to be much easier to pass, revoke, amend, etc… as situations change.