| |
EveShabtoFirstPaper 6 - 30 Apr 2017 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
| | References | |
> > |
In writing for the Web, what's the point of making footnotes? These should be links in the text. Make things easy for the reader.
Substantively, this draft depends on the idea that when two radios
are in touch with one another, the fact of the connection "belongs"
to the smaller radio, and the owner of the larger radio should for
some reason not be able to use that information for its own
purposes, and should not be subject to legal requests for it.
Somehow, then, the Fourth Amendment is supposed to cover a subject
which it had no prior connection with, because we need privacy and
we can't believe that we lost it without doing something about it.
I'm sympathetic, but I did spend weeks trying to explain in detail
why this won't work and the history can't be assumed away. Now,
without making any reference to what I said on the subject, you've
simply asserted that because we need the location of the other
fellow's radio that we put ourselves in touch with to be private, it
is private, and not only private, but the government should need a
search warrant, not a subpoena, to get it.
But this makes no sense. If you want the cellular service provider
not to know where you are, your phone has to be off, or you have to
leave it somewhere else. The US Constitution doesn't dictate that
you rather than the service provider have a right to data generated
by the fact that your two radios were in touch, let alone that these
radio signals are so sacred that government needs a search warrant
for the fact of the connections. If you're going to make that
argument, it has to be based on more than assertion of need: there
has to be some relationship between the legal doctrine for which you
are contending and the prior history of the constitutional
provision. Otherwise, you are just making up constitutional law.
| | 1. Mobile Technology Fact Sheet, PEW RES. CENTER, http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/ (last visited Mar. 4, 2017)
2. Riley v. California, _ U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2484 (2014). |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors. All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| |