Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 04:27 PM Aug 2013

4th Amendment for the 21st century

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, digital footprint, 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.


digital footprint being any data of any form which is capable of being associated with a specific citizen.
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
4th Amendment for the 21st century (Original Post) PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 OP
There definitely needs to be discussion on the handling of data. Egnever Aug 2013 #1
this would require a complete reversal of how we currently handle data PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #2
There are unintended consequences Egnever Aug 2013 #3
I have had the phone call when I was traveling PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #5
I would love to just outright agree with you but Egnever Aug 2013 #9
it would certainly break the internet as we know it. PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #10
It might not be Egnever Aug 2013 #11
psst... usGovOwesUs3Trillion Aug 2013 #14
headscratch PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #15
The Privacy Pirates don't like restraints usGovOwesUs3Trillion Aug 2013 #6
I do wish someone up on the hill would stand up for our digital rights. PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #7
They didn't need to edit an existing civil right though usGovOwesUs3Trillion Aug 2013 #8
I'd say and effects covers that, too usGovOwesUs3Trillion Aug 2013 #4
Yes, because to DOJ does not share your view PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #12
Time to go to SCOTUS usGovOwesUs3Trillion Aug 2013 #13
 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
1. There definitely needs to be discussion on the handling of data.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 04:32 PM
Aug 2013

I am hoping for rational discussion on it before they make kneejerk laws based on the latest outrage that cripple the internet or destroy its freedom.

It is a very complex problem and will take serious thought to craft laws that are appropriate.

The public will need a lot of education as will many lawmakers. Otherwise we are going to end up with over reaching laws with lots of unintended consequences.


 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
2. this would require a complete reversal of how we currently handle data
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 04:42 PM
Aug 2013

But, It would not be the first time in US history that major changes occurred. Currently we put everything out publicly and hope/assume that it is handled correctly. What if everything defaulted to anonymity first, with the individual in control of releasing it as needed? A Visa or Master-card that resembled a cash transaction? No tracking built into the system. What has happened imo, is that the system grew so big so fast, that there was not any thought to the long term repercussions. Maybe it is time to rethink things a bit. Maybe tear down some of the transaction logic and rebuild new logic based on privacy. This would likely be software solutions. No real need to modify any hardware. All of that infrastructure could remain.

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
3. There are unintended consequences
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 04:52 PM
Aug 2013

No matter what, this is not an easy nut to crack.

In just your example I can see problems. For one if they made visa or mastercards resemble cash transactions it would remove a lot of the info they use to detect fraud. My card number was recently compromised and they caught it almost immediately because they were aware of my spending habits. Take that away and the amount of fraud would skyrocket overnight.

It is an incredibly complicated problem. I only hope any laws proposed or passed are carefully deliberated and thought out and like I said not a kneejerk reaction to something.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
5. I have had the phone call when I was traveling
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 04:57 PM
Aug 2013

Asking about charges. I appreciate the fact that they are looking out for those transactions.

I agree, it is a very tough situation. But, I firmly believe our digital footprint belongs to us and information should only be used in ways we allow unless a warrant is issued to examine the data. I am thinking along the lines of HIPA in the medical fields.

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
9. I would love to just outright agree with you but
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:17 PM
Aug 2013

I find the issue far too complex for such a black and white response.

Take facebook for example. People post all kinds of personal info on there for the world to see. Is it really reasonable to say the whole world except the government can look at that data? Seems fairly silly to me to put in such restrictions.

Digital footprint is a broad term that can encompass a lot.

I agree with your sentiment I just dont think its nearly as easy as changing a couple words in the fourth amendment. The unintended consequences would be vast if we did such a thing and might even break the internet as we know it.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
10. it would certainly break the internet as we know it.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:21 PM
Aug 2013

But, that may not be a bad thing to do. Better now than later. The more entrenched something gets, the harder the change.

I just hope people start the conversation. Thank you for your views

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
11. It might not be
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:29 PM
Aug 2013

I do love the freedom of the internet as it stands now though and I am very loath to destroy any part of that freedom.

It could be an awesome change though you could be right.

I also hope the conversation starts. It is certainly one that needs to be had. I dont think as it stands now many are aware of what they give up when it comes to privacy when they are on the net, and at the very least people should be aware of what their expectations of privacy should be. Even if they are none at all people should be aware of it, or especially if there is none at all.

 

usGovOwesUs3Trillion

(2,022 posts)
6. The Privacy Pirates don't like restraints
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:08 PM
Aug 2013

But if enough people speak up, there is a chance we can twist their arms whether the totalitarians like it or not.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
7. I do wish someone up on the hill would stand up for our digital rights.
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:12 PM
Aug 2013

DOJ isn't going to currently. Sometimes world changing events (internet, digital communications) require changes to the basic rules that govern society. They passed HIPA in 1999 because of so many changes. There are vast amounts of other personal data floating around. Why is health data considered any different than our other data?

 

usGovOwesUs3Trillion

(2,022 posts)
8. They didn't need to edit an existing civil right though
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:16 PM
Aug 2013

I'm more in favor of adding, or writing a new law backed by our existing liberties.

 

usGovOwesUs3Trillion

(2,022 posts)
4. I'd say and effects covers that, too
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 04:56 PM
Aug 2013

Our internet effects.

But I agree there needs to a law, based on the 4th, that makes it clear to the totalitarians that spying on everyone is against the law.

 

PowerToThePeople

(9,610 posts)
12. Yes, because to DOJ does not share your view
Mon Aug 12, 2013, 05:30 PM
Aug 2013

DOJ: We don't need warrants for e-mail, Facebook chats

An FBI investigation manual updated last year, obtained by the ACLU, says it's possible to warrantlessly obtain Americans' e-mail "without running afoul" of the Fourth Amendment. (CNET)

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57583395-38/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»4th Amendment for the 21s...