undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmc322y ago0 comments

Fourth amendment to the constitution. They would need a warrant. Laws don’t evaporate just because it’s in the digital realm.

0 comments

space_fountain2y ago

If you have a friend who's willing to report on you for a price and the government pays the price the 4th amendment wouldn't have been violated. Why is is different because it's digital? The government isn't spying on you, it's just paying for information collected legally

mc32OP2y ago

If you call the gov and you confess to something that’s on you.

Your friend also cannot just bust into your house and search through your things. Now the government because it has enormous powers behind it and people willing to do the wrong thing on its behalf is specifically limited in what it’s allowed to do.

somenits2y ago

It depends. If someone breaks into your house with government encouragement, that’s a Fourth Amendment violation. If he breaks into your house because he’s a burglar, and then happens upon something he knows the government would want, and then sells that information to the government, it’s not a Fourth Amendment violation.

1 more reply

weard_beard2y ago

The government paying a contractor to circumvent the constitution is still the government violating the constitution.

kevin_thibedeau2y ago

The 4A does actually evaporate for a subset of Americans. Reagan's EO12333 permits warrantless collection for Americans subject to background investigations. You are fair game for the panopticon from the submission of an SF86 application until the time you end your security clearance. The domestic surveillance apparatus exists, in part, to facilitate that need which is something the affected agencies want to preserve a carve out for.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse