Things I noticed yesterday that really confused people:
* The fourth amendment does not provide a right to privacy. In US federal law there is no right to privacy except for the limited provisions defined in the Privacy Act of 1974.
* The NSA is not law enforcement just as the Census Bureau is not law enforcement. Even when this was pointed out people still attempted to prove some point by comparing the NSA to police departments.
* Rights exist to protect people from government intrusion. People really want to either confuse rights with liberties or sweeping mandates applied irrespective of personal intrusions.
Your example is confusing. What does a warrant have to do with a person displaying weapons on their own lawn?
I believe the point was that, if a person displays their weapons on the lawn, the police don't need a warrant in order to discover that the person has those weapons. They can look from the street without having a warrant.
> In US federal law there is no right to privacy except for the limited provisions defined in the Privacy Act of 1974.
And yet Roe v Wade was decided on the basis of a right to privacy. Is abortion the only privacy right we have? Or was the Roe decision a case of judges judging on what they wanted, not on what the law said? Or do we actually have more of a right to privacy than what you are saying?
Things in the open don't need a warrant. To get to this personal data doesn't require intrusion. We've used it as currency and that currency is being resold on the open market.
I'm asking how 4A protects what is out in the open.
* The fourth amendment does not provide a right to privacy. In US federal law there is no right to privacy except for the limited provisions defined in the Privacy Act of 1974.
* The NSA is not law enforcement just as the Census Bureau is not law enforcement. Even when this was pointed out people still attempted to prove some point by comparing the NSA to police departments.
* Rights exist to protect people from government intrusion. People really want to either confuse rights with liberties or sweeping mandates applied irrespective of personal intrusions.
Your example is confusing. What does a warrant have to do with a person displaying weapons on their own lawn?