zlacker

>>nickth+(OP)
I'm completely ok with the police asking me for video from my doorbell. I'm not ok with the police using the third party doctrine and asking the hosting service for my video without asking me. That video is every bit my property as the files in my desk drawer and should be subject to the same protections.

>>indymi+79
It's a mistake to trust a cloud service with your data and expect no one to take advantage of the fact that they are the ones holding it.

>>smolde+Jg
Yah, that's not the problem he's referencing.

He's referencing that we have early 20th and late 19th century case law about third parties holding documents, etc, that is used to make everything sitting at a cloud service subject to subpoena without a warrant (email, etc, too).

There's all kinds of precedent that was based on sane tradeoffs for the 1800's that doesn't make sense anymore with the more complicated ways we transact and interact and with the ability of technology to commit mass surveillance.

>>mlyle+Qi
But if Western countries really had liberal principles of democracy and freedom why do we not already have these protections?

>>goodSt+tj
Because slow moving legal precedent and interpretation of constitutional documents is important. But sometimes, underlying facts change in ways that break the analogies used in past reasoning, and we need to catch up.

The problem has only been super significant for 15-20 years, which is a blink of an eye in this sense; not even enough time for the populace to really understand and appreciate the issue.

It is, of course, still broken.

>>mlyle+Kk
Right but why should “the populace” even need to be aware of the problem? If the people with political power believe in these principles themselves shouldn't they just draft some new legislation to fix it? When Russia invaded Ukraine our leaders jumped into action to help them defend their country even on another continent, but when what is supposedly one of the founding principles of the US is totally broken you think its consistent with the assumption that our leaders share these values with us for them to drag their feet for multiple decades?

>>goodSt+Gp
Legislation doesn't affect the interpretation of the constitution.

And in this case, judicial precedent follows evolving (both popular and legal) ideas of what the words in the constitution mean.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..."

"Persons, houses, papers, and effects" has been interpreted in terms of what things a person had, excluding things that they had given someone else to hold. It was a pretty reasonable interpretation and compromise, until it was the governing case law that covered the cloud.