SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Minnesota legislature has introduced an amendment to the MN Constitution to enshrine the protections afforded by the 4th amendment to electronic communication and data as well. It appears that this amendment has broad diverse support in the state house but leadership in the state senate is only lukewarm on it. In the senate Ron Latz (DFL) Chairman of the Judiciary Committee had blocked the amendment stating that he feels it is redundant. Additionally Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk (DFL) opposes the amendment because it is an amendment to the MN constitution. If passed, Minnesota would become only the second state to enact such a change — Missouri enacted its amendment last year with 75% of the popular vote.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
MN Legislature Introduces Amendment to Protect Electronic Communication
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 23 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
The truth about a man lies first and foremost in what he hides.
-- Andre Malraux
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday February 19 2015, @12:24AM
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for the 4th amendment, but repeating it at the state level is largely a pointless exercise. The 4th Amendment applies to ALL Americans, regardless of where they live - the state of Minnesota doesn't need to independently enact it, nor does anyone gain any new protections if they do so.
Seems to me that there is possibly still reason for this law.
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.
Since the bill addresses electronic communication and data, there little to no protection offered by the 4th. You have already handed your communications over to a third party when you sent it over the net. An individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information provided to third parties. (Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" on the net, most specifically not with regard to email. There never has been, in the absence of encryption.
If nothing else, this bill prevents MINNESOTA (and Minnesota police agencies) from intercepting, cataloging, recording. That alone is worth the effort of passing the bill.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 19 2015, @01:22AM
You are not drawing the right distinction. The 3rd party doctrine applies regardless of electronic or analog data. Similarly simply using the network does not expose you to the 3rd party doctrine, no more than the feds are allowed to tap your phone calls. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA [wikipedia.org]) and the Stored Communications ACT (SCA [wikipedia.org]) did establish some protections, however they have been reduced by the PATRIOT and CALEA acts.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday February 19 2015, @02:59AM
Since the bill addresses electronic communication and data, there little to no protection offered by the 4th.
The "papers" bit was meant to protect your information, not so much your literal papers. Now, this combined with the fact that we live in an age where it's nearly impossible to avoid having a great deal of data about you stored by many companies indicates that your information is indeed protected by the 4th amendment. You can't tell me that it violates the spirit of the constitution for the government to directly spy on you, but then it suddenly doesn't violate the spirit of the constitution when the government uses companies to collect your data and then they 'voluntarily' give it to the government. I also strongly suspect that if the mass surveillance we're seeing now had been used against the founding fathers, they would have taken steps to more explicitly prevent it, much like they did with other issues. So I would say the 4th amendment is sufficient. Still, things like this can't really hurt anything, even if they only make a statement.
There is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" on the net, most specifically not with regard to email.
There is an *ethical* expectation of privacy, however. I despise this "reasonable expectation of privacy" standard, because all it means is that if the government violates a certain type of privacy enough, no one could have a 'reasonable' expectation that they have that type of privacy. I say it is unethical for the government (or most others) to spy on my communications, even if they are unencrypted. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't encourage encryption as a safety precaution, though; we definitely should.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday February 19 2015, @03:03AM
That doesn't mean that we shouldn't encourage encryption as a safety precaution, though; we definitely should.
Especially since we have lots of authoritarian judges who don't actually care about the constitutional or people's freedoms, as you showed when you referred to that case. Whether it is 'metadata' (which is just a type of data, despite them wanting to make them appear completely separate, and it is very useful for oppressing people) or the actual content is irrelevant.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday February 19 2015, @04:17AM
Ethical? Spirit?
I'm just going by what the judges said.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday February 19 2015, @08:34AM
There's your mistake.