Hacker News Reader

Comment by shevy-java | Hacker News Reader

I am not sure I have understood this fully.

Should not a query towards some provider about the online-data about some citizen be protected by the first amendment? In other words, if a search warrant would be required to enter a house, unless invited, why would this not apply to online data stored somewhere? There are only very few situations where a warrantless search may be conducted, e. g. such as when driving a car and a cop has an objective and reasonable suspicion. When the court systems is no longer involved, it then means that people objectively have lost certain basic rights, freedoms and safeguards against any governmental overreach.

View on HN

The courts view service providers as "third parties" and when you knowingly give them your data, the courts believe that it is no longer yours and is thereby not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

The "Third Party doctrine" is a blatantly unconstitutional power grab.

It was originally controversially applied to a person's transactions with a bank, and then absurdly extended to include anything anyone holds for someone else, even someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage.

>and then absurdly extended to include anything anyone holds for someone else, even someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage.

Was there actually a court ruling affirming this interpretation? Skimming the wikipedia article, all the court cases has to do with metadata generated by the third party provider (eg. cell site data or cryptocurrency transaction information). You can argue those should be protected as well, but it's not something like "someone who holding it for the purpose of providing secure storage", like an email inbox or whatever.

Does it apply to safe-deposit boxes?

I'd not be surprised if that's exactly why those boxes always come with a keyhole that the renter has the only key for; the official process for "lost my keys" is paying the lock drilling and replacing fee stipulated in the rental agreement.

They thought it did. It may not. Thankfully the law is not static:

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-01-23/appeals-...

https://archive.is/RnU68

The first amendment is not related. I think you are talking about the fourth amendment (protection from unreasonable searches and seizures). In this case the online data is stored by the provider, and there is no private location for which to obtain a warrant. The provider's database is not your private domicile. Legally, it is no different from a cop asking a store for footage from their cameras.

Of course, the claim is that it should not be considered this way, because it is bad for privacy. But the reasoning that led here is pretty comprehensible.

Given the analogy, I assume the provider can refuse to disclose information except under a warrant.

And that the client and provider can sign a contract forbidding the provider to disclose the information except under a warrant.

> I assume the provider can refuse

4A says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" so I would think the provider of the service could consider their data to be "their papers/effects" but is the provider a member of "the people" if it's not a sole proprietor?

Yes, providers can absolutely deny requests that aren't lawful. A company is within its right to say the data is their property stored on company property and a warrant is required to search it.

They probably could refuse, but isn’t selling access to surveillance information about you part of their business model? As they say, “we value your privacy…”

If you don't pay for a service, you are the product..

If you pay for service you are premium product. Even more useful private data for interested parties.

Legally, it is probably the case that the laws are just not written to satisfy those of us who want privacy, right? The “ubiquitous privatized surveillance” industry came about after our government lost the institutional capability to pass new laws that help people (around the turn of the century).

The crux of the issue is that, just like how you're free (if extremely ill-advised) to invite a cop to search your car or home without requiring a warrant from them, the companies are letting the cops search "their" information (about you) freely.

The companies are entirely within their rights to say "fuck off and get a warrant, you ghouls", but from their perspective, it's a lot easier to just hand it over.

Not just easier. But more profitable/lucrative, indirectly, and sometimes disturbingly, pretty directly.

They aren't always entirely within their rights to refuse to give up your data: the third party doctrine doesn't transfer your expectation of privacy to the third party holding your data, it says that neither you nor the third party has an expectation of privacy for that information. Subpoenas and court orders and other process short of a warrant can compel disclosure of this "third party" data.

This is why there's a patchwork of statutes requiring Fourth Amendment ish processes for things like wiretaps and emails.

> In other words, if a search warrant would be required to enter a house, unless invited, why would this not apply to online data stored somewhere?

The government has long considered the 4th amendment to be a major hindrance. The only reason that they even seek a warrant to search your home or belongings is because the 4th amendment explicitly says

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

I don't know the legal justification for excluding things like email metadata, but I imagine it goes like this:

> Your emails are not in your house, on your person, or are papers or effects. They are numbers stored in someone else's computer, and we only need the consent of someone else to get that information, which they will provide because they don't want to get on our bad side.

But the realistic reasoning is: the 4th amendment is a pain in the ass to law enforcement and they'd much rather it was never written at all, so they will cast whatever legal incantations are required to put a wall between your rights and your data

Broadly speaking if the data is on someone else’s computer, it’s in their “house” for the purpose of the search.

Cracking open your phone might require a warrant. But basically every byte of data on it has come from your ISP and is backed up to Apple\Google etc. and those companies will let me search their computers for your data no questions asked (or for a nominal fee).

That’s how you sidestep the 4th amendment when it comes to tech in the modern age.

"Sidestep" : "violate" :: "po-tay-to" : "po-tah-to"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com