A bit of a and a bit of b. The intention was to protect private property from government snooping without probable cause. It was a way to balance property rights against the governments' law-enforcement powers.
Could you qualify your use of "private property" to account for the many ways in which the "property rights" are assessed in terms of the 4A, e.g. in terms of surveillance?
Personally, I don't think the 4th amendment has much to say about surveillance. It protects four enumerated property rights: houses, persons, papers, and effects. If you have a property right in something, the government needs a warrant. If you don't, it doesn't.
I don't think surveillance is good, but I'm strongly opposed to twisting the interpretation of the Constitution to fight in courts battles that should be fought in the political realm. We have a real problem with excessive surveillance and over-policing in the US (but also in the UK and other places, to be fair). But the people want safety and security. That's democracy.
I would put the emphasis on "private" rather than on "property" - if a house I rent contains a person and
their papers or effects, they enjoy 4A protection
even though I do not own the house, the person,
or their papers or effects.
The key element in the Oakland FBI story seems to be
the idea that a conversation whose participants
might reasonable believe is private in nature
that happens in a public place can be recorded
without a warrant.
Consider conversations in: a hotel room, an office room,
an office conference room, an empty office or hotel
elevator, a hotel lobby, an otherwise empty bus stop,
an elevator occupied by others, a city bus or subway car
with others nearby.
At what points on the ranges of private to public spaces, and numbers of others present & in eavesdropping range does an expectation of privacy fade away?
For a startup perspective, in which spaces/places could one speak candidly about financials or the latest funding round
and believe that one's speech is truly private?
(Now I'm wondering who's bugging every conference venue and nearby hotel elevators around Disrupt/TechWeek/SxSW/YC interview/etc venues? I wonder how often bug installers find competitors bugs, and whether they compete or collaborate with each other?)
I would just like to point out something, not entirely focused at you, but because I see that phrase and similar about "well thats democracy for ya.."
America is not a democracy.
It is a Constitutional Democratic Republic.
Words have meaning, And I would highly suggest that anyone reading this, begin using that phrase when referencing our government.
A democracy is mob rule, and with a "mob" so ruled by propaganda and easily influenced by the oligarchy corrupted fourth estate, democracy without the Constition or Representative government is nothing but doom.
What America needs is to forget their petty hegellian dialect issues, unite around the enlightenment ideals that inspired our hard won revolution from the british Monarchy, and focus on the return to and enforcment of the principles of the Constitution.
How is it democracy when a group of individuals hold concentrated amounts of power? And when I say individual, I mean corporations, based on current standing legal precedent.
I usually agree with a lot of the things you've stated on here in the past, but I'm really disappointed that you:
a) Conflate democracy with the current sham political system we have in the USA.
b) Don't think that the 4th amendment has much to say about surveillance.
The will of the few is not will of the people. That's the exact opposite when we think of democracy as the "tyranny of the majority".
