Computers, Privacy & the Constitution

View   r10  >  r9  ...
LeylaHadiFirstPaper 10 - 09 May 2015 - Main.LeylaHadi
Line: 1 to 1
 
META TOPICPARENT name="FirstPaper"
Line: 6 to 8
 -- By LeylaHadi - 04 Mar 2015
Added:
>
>
(Next draft -- include analysis of Lynch 2nd Cir. decision)
 

Fourth Amendment Protection

The prevalent and archetypical view that spying is done in specific places on specific people who have created suspicion based on their activities is now false. The idea persists that we can only be physically under surveillance. Physical searches without our consent or a warrant in a particular space have been the predominant focus of Fourth Amendment search cases, with reliance on the reasonable expectation of privacy in that space. We have reasonably expected privacy within the home, not when we are in public space. Inspection of physical aspects of the home through thermal imagining has been found illegal, and warrantless tapping of circuits in our home has been found illegal too. Yet now, with our speech in the expected private domain accessible to the government without any physical intrusion or action, the Fourth Amendment is not living up to its framers' hopes and intention. While the government may not create any law that hinders upon the freedom to say whatever we will, it does not protect us fervently from having that speech obtained against our will and potentially used against us.


Revision 10r10 - 09 May 2015 - 16:02:03 - LeylaHadi
Revision 9r9 - 04 May 2015 - 21:23:53 - LeylaHadi
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
Syndicate this site RSSATOM