Fourth Amendment Surveillance

The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," which the Supreme Court has broadly interpreted to include things such as warrantless wiretaps [1] and even certain types of cell phone call metadata [2]. Effectively, if a person expects their conversations to be private, and society views these as reasonably private (e.g. not taking place in the open, where anyone could overhear), warrantless covert government access constitutes unreasonable search and violates cons

OK: once he got in office, it turned out that watching everyone seemed like a good idea.But here's the thing: it's unconstitutional. It's illegal."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 se

Google isn’t the government, they are a third party who you provide data to. 4th amendment doesn’t apply.

This should be the top rated comment. This [1] is the tactic that is used by government agencies to actively work around protections afforded by the Constitution of the United States.[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/04/26/constituti...

https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/nsa-spying-ameri...We can start with the 4th amendment and move on from there.

Is this an interpretation of the word "unreasonable"? You're only protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, but if they deem collecting this data to be 'reasonable' then it wouldn't apply, if I'm reading it right. That said, I don't know much about the constitution (I'm from England, pip pip).

Privacy is a basic right; it is even constitutionally protected in the United States by the Fourth Amendment. However, it has always been accepted that gross invasions of privacy can be authorised in appropriate cases – for example, warrants to search houses, or warrantless searches of immigrants and prisoners. Why must the right to use end-to-end encryption, unlike the right to privacy in your home or at the border, be accepted without proof as inviolable?

I can't understand why it is not illegal by way of being unconstitutional since it clearly tramples on the 4th amendment rights of all the other subscribers.Absent clear mechanisms for watching the watchmen to make sure they not only respecting the 4th amendment rights of the other subscribers, but technically incapable of doing so (in order to mitigate rogue actors that want to impress their superiors via fishing expeditions), I can't see why we should have any reason to believe th

Similarly, the 4th amendment to the US Constitution reads in full:"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.""papers, and effects" seems to cover internet communications to me (the cl

The more relevant thing is 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."Third party doctrine, by which my private communications are exposed because they use a cloud-hosted provider vs