Federal Court (Finally) Rules Backdoor Searches of Data Unconstitutional
21 comments
·January 22, 2025treetalker
rayiner
You mean like in Riley, which was authored by Chief Justice Roberts and was a 9-0 decision? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riley_v._California
> Riley has been widely praised as “a sweeping victory for privacy rights”[5] with legal scholars describing the decision as "the privacy gift that keeps on giving."
Since then the Court has picked up another privacy hawk (Justice Gorsuch), and another Justice (Barrett) that's also pretty strong on privacy: https://www.protectprivacynow.org/news/how-will-a-justice-am....
dgfitz
No no no, treetalker has an axe to grind, facts are irrelevant.
zdragnar
My understanding of this case has nothing to do with metadata. The communications were captured in full because one party was not a citizen in the US (under national security reasons).
Those communications were then stored and made available in full via keyword based search interfaces, and those later searches were made without first securing a warrant.
I'm not going to bother reading the tea leaves too closely on this one, but I'd put it at least at even odds the supreme court would say the 4th amendment does apply here.
idrathernot
I think “metadata” is meant as an example of Barnum statement in the context of the original comment. It is very common for courts to reinterpret language as a means of getting to a specific end. Same reason that “Interstate Commerce” actually means all commerce in the 10th amendment.
landryraccoon
Can you explain why? That doesn’t seem like sound reasoning to me.
If you believe the reason is corruption, what personal incentive would the courts have to rule this way? Judges can easily be the victim of government overreach as well.
idrathernot
And having a log of every conversation and keystroke that any outspoken judge has ever made gives you all sorts of ways to align their opinions with the above all importance of “National Security”
null
svachalek
Data is wealth and power, and today's Supreme Court will always side with wealth and power.
reverendsteveii
[flagged]
rayiner
In a democracy, what method would you propose judges use to impose restrictions on the actions of the democratically elected government based on a written constitution?
AyyEye
> what method would you propose judges use to impose restrictions
Judges are appointed (or voted in) by the very people you think they "impose restriction" on. Any ruling against the ruling class in our favor is nothing more than a happy accident.
jmclnx
Well I guess of the the US Supreme Court. They seem to get every case these days :(
perihelions
No, just a district court (Eastern District of New York).
superkuh
It's funny that even though the court ruled it is against the law to do so the federal agencies will continue to commit this crime (FBI) and pass illegal legislation (congress) until each specific agency changes it's internal regulations. If they do. The EFF seems to imply continued pressure is needed to convince them to do so.
josefritzishere
This should not have been so hard.
idrathernot
Even if congress ends their blatantly unconstitutional endorsement of Section 702 spying, I still don’t see why anyone would believe that the government is going to do anything other than massively expand their ability surveil every living moment of our lives. I don’t see the point in them trying to play it off like the system has any integrity whatsoever.
kittikitti
[flagged]
datavirtue
The FBI hunts down and removes extremely violent criminals from society every day. They certainly operate right on the edge of the law, as they should. Furthermore, they never stop and never quit and no distance is too far--they will prevail no matter what. Extremely important to the stability of society.
cyanydeez
Yes, its totally the FBI ans not every large tech firm invading and trading youe privacy.
idrathernot
Plausible deniability is key pillar of ensuring National Security
Don't worry: SCOTUS will determine that the Framers did not have a history and tradition of protecting metadata, so the Fourth Amendment has no application here; and, furthermore, the Court's recent jurisprudence regarding the Executive (dieu et mon droit) necessarily implies that the Government has an extremely compelling interest sufficient to overcome the Fourth Amendment and permit warrantless searches of everyone in the United States and elsewhere.