Comment

Comment by jmyeet

The important lesson to draw from the contorted justification for warrantless wiretaps is that this happens all the time. Some have been suckered into thinking something like an "originalist" or "textualist" interpretation of the US constitution is somehow a real thing.

It's not. In fact, it's a fairly modern invention from the Nixon era created with the expressed purpose of rationalizing a socially conservative agenda.

All of this stuf is, essentially, completely made up. The fact that we have civil asset forfeiture (ie legalized theft) should tell you everything. It quite literally says "unreasonable search and seizures". How is this not a 4th Amendment violation?

I'll tell you how: the goal was to OK civil asset forfeiture so the meaning of words were contorted until a sufficient justification was found. There is no textual interpretation going on anywhere. None.

We see this with the legal justification for NSA warrantless wiretaps too. Metadata isn't a "search". Somehow the government can record who you spoke to, when and for how long but not the content and that's still not a "search" (in the 4th Amendment sense). Why? Because the whole thing is completely made up.

parent jmyeet 4 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton