zlacker

>>wut42+(OP)
There are different incidents here.

The first one where the police uploaded videos and wanted viewer information is absolutely egregious and makes me wonder how a court could authorize that.

The next one, which I didn’t fully understand, but appeared to be in response to a swatting incident where the culprit is believed to have watched a specific camera livestream and the police provided a lot of narrowing details (time period, certain other characteristics, etc) appears far more legitimate.

>>addict+J6
I don't understand how either of these are remotely constitutional. They sure aren't what is in the spirit.

They asked for information about a video watched 30k times. Supposing every person watched that video 10 times AND supposing the target was one of the viewers (it really isn't clear that this is true), that's 2999 people who have had their rights violated to search for one. I believe Blackstone has something to say about this[0]. Literally 30x Blackstone's ratio, who heavily influenced the founding fathers.

I don't think any of this appears legitimate.

Edit: Ops [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

>>godels+Zb
I agree that it's egregious, but Sir Blackstone was talking about punishment, especially relating to execution, and I think perhaps the ratio can be adjusted significantly downward when the cost to the innocent is much lower. Otherwise, the only reasonable search would be when a government official is already certain of your guilt.

>>Cobras+ue
I'd consider your rights being violated "punishment."

Blackstone was talking in the abstract. Clearly Franklin was too considering many of the other things he's known for saying.

>>godels+Gh
> I'd consider your rights being violated "punishment."

You are wrong. Punishment is when you impose a penalty as retribution for an offense.

>>andsoi+nl
You can call me wrong, but maybe first ensure you understand negative rights.

I understand why you think I'm wrong, but I hope you understand why I think that way. We can disagree, and that is fine, but let's not act as if there are objective answers in social constructs.

Because, I do think punishment is an imposed penalty. In this case, on your rights. Rights are abstract, and these are not binary nor clearly discrete. House arrest is not jail, nor are fines. But as communicated to you elsewhere, the 4th amendment is about ensuring friction for removing someone's negative rights.

But I disagree that punishment is imposed as a penalty as retribution for an offense. You imply that this requires an actual offense to have been made. I assure you that punishment can be imposed for any arbitrary reason. I can also assure you that punishment is a spectrum, from extremely minor (as I think we'd agree is in this case) and extremely harsh.

>>godels+0o
You to are having a debate over semantics. Most dictionaries would probably agree that punishment is, definitionally, retribution for an offense. You cannot punish without a reason because that's not punishment, it's just hurting people. Your definition may be different, and that's fine, but you can't logic your way out of a difference of opinion on the definition of the word.