Hacker News Reader

Comment by lquist | Hacker News Reader

Catchy name but the putative right to privacy is not explicitly enumerated in the 4th Amendment, but is, "to be found in the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of other constitutional protections." (Namely the 4th, 5th and 9th).

More detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

View on HN

That's because the name "Restore the 4th (including the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of other constitutional protections found in the 4th, 5th, and 9th)" was already taken by a pedantic moron, so they had to settle on something that got the point across without taking up pages of text.

No need to be snarky. I wasn't actually suggesting they change the name.

I was just trying to explain where the right to privacy comes from. It surprises most Americans that it isn't explicitly enumerated and is built up from several different amendments. That also means that it is far from universally agreed upon by legal scholars. It is also the reason that people push for a privacy amendment.

How is reading my email without a specific warrant not a violation of the 4th amendment? Seems cut and dry to me.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

Sure email is relatively straightforward, since that's the equivalent of "papers". But there is all kinds of privacy related this that aren't explicitly included in those words where have been interpreted as in there, like do you have the right to watch porn in your bedroom, or can the government ban porn? Do you have the right to buy condoms, or can he government ban that?

This seems to me to be a prime example of HN comment pedantry. The "right to privacy" and "privacy" are not even mentioned on the linked page. They are seeking to restore the fourth amendment against "unreasonable searches and seizures"

It may be pedantry, but it has the virtue of being correct; because there's a lot of solid legal precedent holding that you don't have an expectation of privacy in things like communications metadata. When it comes to legal matters, it's what the courts say that matters, not what you think the fourth amendment ought to mean.

Thus, the government needs a warrant to open your mail, but not to inspect the envelopes you send your mail in - and this was spelled out in 1878 (Ex Parte Jackson). The scope of what courts have considered to be unreasonable searches is actually fairly narrow. I'm all for rethinking the fourth (or better, adding a 28th). But restore it to...what? How you imagined it when you were in grade school?

It may be pedantry, but it has the virtue of being correct

THE problem with pedantry is not that it is incorrect.

The problem with handwaving is that it just moves the air around.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com