Hacker News Reader

Comment by ck2 | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious what the next step is going to be, maybe try to use "onstar" gps data without a warrant, because the way this is worded, it maybe seems the action of placing the tracking device that is the violation, not using an existing one, and they can still do it for "segments" (ie. tracking you for just one leg of a journey and removing it afterwards is legal without a warrant?)

Next we have to fight for our bodies not to be searched without a warrant as Rand Paul is currently experiencing personally: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3500715

View on HN

> maybe try to use "onstar" gps data

maybe, but probably not necessary. they'll just get warrants. its not really that hard to get a warrant. if they have basically any reason to suspect that you're doing something illegal, they can get a warrant.

remember that even in this case, the government had a 10 day warrant; they just tracked the guy for 11 days.

> the way this is worded, it maybe seems the action of placing the tracking device that is the violation, not using an existing one, and they can still do it for "segments"

not sure what language suggested that, but the facts of this specific case were that they tracked a guy for more time than the warrant allowed (not that they attached a device without a warrant). scotus ruled that this wasn't okay.

I think, unfortunately, it wouldn't be considered a search as the data recording would probably be considered voluntary.

There are certain expectations that the customer has about the parties involved and what the voluntarily collected data will be used for. It would be hard to make make a case that warrantless seizure of data fit into the customer's expectations.

Under existing law voluntary disclosure of the customer's data to law enforcement doesn't appear to be illegal, if the company wants to disclose it (as opposed to having its data centers raided, which does require a warrant). At worst it'd be a violation of the privacy policy, if the privacy policy is held to be legally enforceable.

For example, Facebook has been careful to never make an explicit statement to the effect of, "we never share data with law enforcement unless we receive a warrant or subpoena". My guess is that this is because they do share data without asking for a warrant.

That's just Scalia's footnote.

The linked article says Rand Paul set off an alert on a full body scan, then refused to be searched. That sounds more like his "protest" is trying to cover up something he didn't realize was carrying after the fact - otherwise why was he not protesting the body scan in the first place.

Not necessarily. Last week, I opted out of backscatter, and the pat-down triggered an "explosives detected" alert. I was in a hurry, but otherwise would have wanted to be much more resistive of the private search I underwent after that.

Because it's absurd. Because I do not carry or interact with explosives.

Rand Paul has on numerous occasions spoken out against the TSA's use of pat downs...

I see no difference in principle between a search using someone's hands and search using X-rays. If one objects to rights violation during a pat-down, why doesn't the same objection apply to backscatter?

A backscatter machine in some ways is even more intrusive than a pat down as it can generate higher resolution images, which can be saved. Furthermore, there is a small, but non-zero risk of bodily harm from the scan -particularly when you multiply the risk by the number of trips and passengers going through the procedure, even a one in a million chance would cause harm far in excess of the risk of terrorist threat that the search is trying to mitigate.

If I have a nude photograph of someone, does that mean I've already raped them?

"I see no difference in principle between a search using someone's hands and search using X-rays."

Then you are hopelessly inhuman. The difference should be obvious, and likely cannot be explained if it is not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com