Hacker News Reader

Comment by calibas | Hacker News Reader

You seem to be playing dumb here. You realize us "normal people" believe the Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government, and the 4th means the government doesn't get to spy on everybody indiscriminately?

And yes, they are spying on everybody. They have access to things like cellphone metadata, which to a normal human being is a very clear violation of privacy.

It's also my firm belief that our legal system has been undermining these basic concepts for decades now. It benefits the federal government to make this all very vague, as if modern technology suddenly means you have no expectation of privacy anymore. They've also mixed in some of that wonderfully authoritarian "for purposes of national security".

There's actual lawyers saying these same things, if you'd like someone to properly debate with.

View on HN

I'm not going to argue over principles, as that's not law, and I largely agree with them.

However:

> They have access to things like cellphone metadata, which to a normal human being is a very clear violation of privacy.

In the U.S., when you study 4th Amendment law in Criminal Procedure, you learn there is a "third party doctrine" that says that if you voluntarily provide a third party with information--even information you consider private-it's the third party's property and you can no longer object to it being sought by the Government. There's a good overview of this on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

The Supreme Court declined to extend the third-party doctrine to tracking one's location via cell-phone metadata in Carpenter v. U.S., 585 U.S. 296 (2018), so it's not absolute.

Yep, that's the exact "loophole" I mentioned in my original comment!

The government can now partner with private businesses to effectively bypass the Fourth Amendment.

Yes, that is true. But that is not a violation, which was in the first clause of your original claim. It's an end-run.

If it were a violation, Courts could enjoin it. But since it's not a violation, there's nothing to enjoin.

If it's not clear already, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not using strict legal definitions.

Congratulations. By needling and carving at semantics, you win the argument! Two more Internet points for you!

It's almost like HN isn't a court and the OP was expressing their opinion that this should be illegal. . . Not relying on specific semantics for the current state of affairs?

To say that something is a belief or should be and to say that something is a fact are two different things. When you say the latter, you are putting yourself at a significantly greater risk of being incorrect. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know this. And I’d expect someone with your background to know this better than most!

HN is a forum of written communications. Clarity and accuracy are essential skills for participating effectively in such places, and are the responsibility of the author.

This is an internet forum, not a court of law.

And therefore what, exactly? When you distill the two down to their essence, they’re similar in that they’re groups of people making written arguments against each other. (And, frequently, complaining about mistreatment.)

Are you trying to argue that people shouldn’t be taken at their word? Or that we shouldn’t challenge people who make unqualified legal assertions? I’m not sure what your point is.

People here are making arguments about what should be. Either as interpretations or created laws.

We all know that the actual interpretation is up to 5 republicans on the supreme court and whatever they feel on a given day will increase their side's power/ideology.

No one is going to be making arguments about that because there's no point, you can't logic someone out of a position that they didn't use logic to get to in the first place.

So again, when someone on a forum says "this is wrong and something should be done about it" replying that it might technically be legal at this moment in time is incredibly useless. It's completely missing the point.

> when someone on a forum says "this is wrong and something should be done about it"

If that had been what was said, we wouldn’t even be here.

Perhaps we can work on what is called "media literacy" where we understand text based on its context and authorship and other such clues.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47025768

You have the roles and responsibilities exactly backwards.

Well, my comments got more upvotes than yours did, and this is a democracy, so I guess I win?

You can't see others' upvotes (at least, for net positive scores), so there's no way to know.

it is times like these i am reminded of https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

That was actually my first thought. The focus on this part of the thread has left the actual meat of the article entirely and is focused instead on a post trying to weedle meaning where there is none.

You caught me, boys! I’d better go tell my boss I failed because these kids are too smart to be fooled.

You had me up until now. Turns out your whole point is arguing semantics? You're arguing just to argue and not providing anything of substance on this point. As another person said, this isn't a court.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026226

If X is against law Y the recourse is to seek judgment from courts. If it’s not against the law the recourse is to seek new law from Congress.

The difference is significant for that reason alone. The other reason is that if you’re looking to recruit supporters you will get more of them if you get your ducks in a row. Disorganized ducks impair credibility and create friction.

Not making the distinction between the two is only helpful for the purpose of blowing off steam and the only outcome is outrage fatigue.

Unfortunately, all lawyers and courts do is argue semantics.

Which is why it's a misnomer to call the legal system a justice system in criminal cases. Lol.

> I'm not going to argue over principles, as that's not law,

> The Supreme Court declined to extend the third-party doctrine to tracking one's location via cell-phone metadata in Carpenter v. U.S., 585 U.S. 296 (2018), so it's not absolute.

In other words, principles are law -- in the US, whatever the principles of 9 judges at a given time, because they are the final arbiter of what anything written down by Congress means. "Third-party doctrine" is not law as written by Congress, it is something the Supreme Court made up out of thin air according to their principles. And these principles are not binding; a later panel of judges is free to throw out the rulings of older judges if they decide their principles differ, as famously happened to Roe v. Wade among other cases.

> It's also my firm belief that our legal system has been undermining these basic concepts for decades now. It benefits the federal government to make this all very vague, as if modern technology suddenly means you have no expectation of privacy anymore. They've also mixed in some of that wonderfully authoritarian "for purposes of national security".

Very well said. While the legal system's details are important for a few avenues of effecting change, they're often used to bog down conversions into "what is" territory rather than staying focused on "what ought". And "what ought", based on the ideals laid out in our country's founding documents, is very different from "what is" in the modern day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com