Guess where all that data ends up? The government can just pay retailers to get transaction data, so if the police wants to dig up dirt on you, it’s easier than ever.
That’s pretty messed up IMO, and I’m not happy with this trend given where privacy protections are at these days…
Yep. We need a very strict law to prevent the government from partnering with private companies to get around the fourth amendment. The third party doctrine has obliterated our privacy rights.
Agreed. If there’s anything we should collectively push for, it’s a constitutional recognition to a right to privacy. That’s what Roe v Wade was based on, and it was overturned because it wasn’t constitutionally defensible. The 4th amendment sadly isn’t sufficient, we need to take it a step further.
The Ninth Amendment, if actually followed, would put the burden on the government to prove that something was not a right, rather than just denying it because it wasn’t enumerated in the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has directly contradicted the Ninth by claiming that only enumerated rights are really rights. Except when they make up new ones like corporate personhood.
It seems we’re moving that direction. Physical media in video games is becoming less and less common, more and more stores are digital only (and Google made a deal w/ Mastercard to get that data), and ebooks are likely to overtake physical books in the near-ish future.
Guess where all that data ends up? The government can just pay retailers to get transaction data, so if the police wants to dig up dirt on you, it’s easier than ever.
That’s pretty messed up IMO, and I’m not happy with this trend given where privacy protections are at these days…
Yep. We need a very strict law to prevent the government from partnering with private companies to get around the fourth amendment. The third party doctrine has obliterated our privacy rights.
Agreed. If there’s anything we should collectively push for, it’s a constitutional recognition to a right to privacy. That’s what Roe v Wade was based on, and it was overturned because it wasn’t constitutionally defensible. The 4th amendment sadly isn’t sufficient, we need to take it a step further.
The Ninth Amendment, if actually followed, would put the burden on the government to prove that something was not a right, rather than just denying it because it wasn’t enumerated in the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has directly contradicted the Ninth by claiming that only enumerated rights are really rights. Except when they make up new ones like corporate personhood.
Yeah, I wish that was the case. But no, we apparently need to be explicit with the Supreme Court.