Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's a neat argument that the Feds have.

If you send traffic unencrypted: 'You have no expectation of privacy, because you're broadcasting information publicly.'

Turn on encryption: 'Clearly you have something to hide, and deserve additional scrutiny. It's still not a fourth amendment violation because we are just compelling a business to give us your keys'

Morton's Fork:

    A man living modestly must be saving money and could
    therefore afford taxes, whereas if he was living
    extravagantly then he was obviously rich and could
    still afford them.

Right on,

Clearly its also ok for the police to search your apartment at any time as well. You don't own your apartment, an apartment corporation does, so its clearly not a 4th amendment violation

Actually laws do protect private domain of a rental. It's the same reason the apartment companies themselves/landlords are not allowed to enter the apartment without your expressed consent.

They don't need consent, they just need to give notice.

The point is those laws are the implementation of the intent behind the Fourth Amendment, and it's strange that we don't have other laws which implement the full intent of the Fourth Amendment with respect to private communication.

Hey, don't give them any ideas now.

Corporations are people now as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Elec...

Let's sue for the violation of our company's 4th amendment rights.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact