Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Failing Right of Laptop Privacy

Posted by Zonk on from the don't-tread-on-my-data dept.

davidwr writes "Wired has an interesting editorial on laptop searches and seizures. It raises some interesting issues, including employee rights against police searches in the workplace, routine vs. non-routine searches at ports of entry, and police use of unrelated data found in a database search. The article ends saying: 'Of course, there's a chance that the courts will not recognize the different scope of privacy interests at stake in computer searches, or will not be adept at crafting a rule that gives enough leeway and guidance to law enforcement, while also protecting privacy. At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age.'"

6 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. At that point, the Constitution may fail us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The constitution certainly left the building back in the age of the new deal, possibly even as early as aliens and sedition.

    1. Re:At that point, the Constitution may fail us by genrader · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AMEN. The New Deal was not the last of the Constitution though. Alien and Sedition Acts were bad, as were many other things, but the death of the Constitution was in 1913, when Congress took away its own power to coin money and gave it to a private bank, as well as the introduction of the income tax and the end of Senators being elected by states. The only reason we have it so good now is because of our wariness of tyranny and the great age of capitalism, but that will all end when the right tyrant comes along.

      --
      the Political Inquirer
    2. Re:At that point, the Constitution may fail us by k1e0x · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Word.

      1913 was the *start* of us loosing our rights but with the recent stuff (patriot act, land seizures, warrant less wire taping, military tribunals) its all gone now.

      I cant think of a single part of the bill of rights that we still have.

      Why is speech "limited" at political rallies or universities? Why is hate speech a crime? ..because the 1st Amendment is meaningless.

      Why are there gun laws restricting firearms? ..because the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.

      The 3rd.. is possibly impractical.. and also probably meaningless as well.. but if not, the feds will find a way to make it legal.

      The government can search practically anything they want now? Laptops, Phone records, E-Mail, you name it, why? ..because the 4th Amendment is meaningless.

      How can the City of New London takes peoples land and give it to Pfizer? ..because the 5th Amendment is meaningless.

      Why is José Padilla been in jail for 4 years being tortured, when his case is still pre-trail? ..because the 6th (and 8th) Amendment, are meaningless.

      Why does just about everyone accused of mutable crimes seek a plea bargain for a lesser offence instead of standing up for there rights? Why does the state tack on so many charges with extreme punishment (101 years for spamming)? ..because the 7th Amendment is -basically- meaningless.

      Why is a man being sentenced to 101 years for spamming? Why is another man sentenced (and denied appeal) to 50 years in prison for selling pot? Why are children being convicted of molesting each other? ..because the 8th Amendment is meaningless.

      Why does the government have the power to do anything we don't specially say they don't have or can pick apart and widdle down the other rights we have? Why is it the people reserve no rights beyond what's listed in the constitution .. that or what the government allows? ..because the 9th and 10th Amendments are meaningless.

      We have a "vestige" of the construction.. we don't actually have enforceable rights in the same sense as they were written. The Ed Brown case is part of this, the court would not allow him to use constructional law in his court. read that again.. you can't use the construction.. the highest law on of land in a U.S. federal court. The judges swear an oath to it but its entirely irreverent anymore.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  2. Re:And Hopefully... by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. -G.B. Shaw

    KFG

  3. Failed what? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At that point, the Constitution may fail us, and we will have to turn to Congress to create rules that are better adapted for the information age.

    Nonsense. The Constitution hasn't "failed us", it is our commitment to honoring its provisions that has wavered. The Constitution is just as relevant and meaningful now as it was two centuries ago. Furthermore, I would argue that it is more important than ever that we observe Constitutional law and hold our elected (and unelected!) officials accountable for their deviances from it.

    So far as Congress crafting better rules for the Information Age is concerned ... I'd not hold your breath. When they passed the DMCA and the Patriot Act I lost all hope of Congress ever being willing or able to legislate us out of this mess, given that they're most of the reason that we're in it.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  4. Re:And Hopefully... by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than the majority deserves.

    Shaw used the royal "we" and his observation was directed at your point. Democratic forms of government at best serve the lowest common demoniator (which is something rather different than the majority). At worst it is, of course, nothing more than a self-satisfied lynch mob.

    Which is why the framers gave us a Congress instead of a democracy (they knew about Athens), under a constitution (they knew about Rome). They anticipated Shaw's further observation that anyone who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.

    It is not the fault of Congress if the least common denominator has demanded more and more democracy while deserving it less and less.

    It is the fundamental premise of our governmental philosophy that the government will be corrupted and that it is the responsibility of The People, freemen all, to see to their own freedoms.

    Where The People demand the "freedom" to be endentured in order that they may be "free" to watch Survivor and Big Brother on a really big TV, that is the freedom they will get.

    Freedom is messy and uncomfortable. The People would rather be comfortable serfs than uncomfortable freemen, in numbers far greater than a simple majority. Let's call it, ooooooooh (pulling a number out of my ass that probably isn't too far wrong) - 98%.

    Give me liberty, or give me. . .ooooooooooooooo, shiney!

    KFG