Here's a recent news article about swedish politicians planning to make our cops synthesise CSAM, because they supposedly need it:
https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/jQV959/polisens-nya-ver...
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.
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.
And that the client and provider can sign a contract forbidding the provider to disclose the information except under a warrant.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I also feel like the article generally misrepresents the entire American legal system, since the system itself does not really prevent the cops from doing the bad things, but instead tries to say that the result of the bad thing cannot be used as evidence. So it really isn't structured to ensure that the cops can't get your voice mails. It is structured such that if the cops improperly accessed your voice mails that can't be used against you in court.
tailspin2019•2h ago
jamesgill•1h ago
layer8•1h ago
hunter2_•1h ago
If the "how" of a situation is newsworthy, presumably the existence of the situation is as well, so the benefit of a more concise title isn't creating a major downside. On the other hand, I wouldn't consider the more verbose title a major downside either, so the adjustment isn't worth the potential issues.
dylan604•1h ago
fragmede•35m ago
hunter2_•27m ago
layer8•1h ago
hunter2_•35m ago
rc_mob•15m ago