8 ms·

It's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, but the government acts like they've found a "loophole" because it's private businesses doing the spying.

by calibas 7mo ago

jaco6 7mo ago
[dead]
verisimi 7mo ago
If corporations and government are acting together, this is fascism (according to Mussolini). It seems that is already the case. It's just we call it 'democracy'. Perhaps 'crypto-fascism' is the right term.
- mindslight 7mo ago
  "Inverted totalitarianism" is the term you're looking for, although with Trumpism we're flipping to just straightforward totalitarianism. "Crypto-fascism" is applicable to Surveillance Valley's fake strain of "libertarianism", which is more accurately described as corporate authoritarianism.
otterley 7mo ago
As an attorney I’d like to understand why you think there is a “clear” Constitutional violation going on here. What activity, specifically, are you referring to, and what precedent supports your claim?
- cucumber3732842 7mo ago
  Seems to me like someone's security camera footage, even if held by a 3rd party, would pretty clearly fall under "papers and effects" same as my crap sitting in a rented storage unit does. It's only because we've had a century of legal contrivance that it doesn't IMO.
- calibas 7mo ago
  You're an attorney and you're asking me why the government spying on everyone is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment?
  - otterley 7mo ago
    Yes. You’re the one making the assertion (not just that there is a violation but also that the activity is that “the government spying on everyone”); the burden of proof is thus on you. Attorneys challenge each other as a matter of course in every case before a court. This is how the adversarial system works. Perhaps what you meant to say is that “I don’t like the activity that is happening here,” or “I think some of this might be unconstitutional.” When someone makes a naked blanket assertion about the law, it’s usually a sign that that person doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
    - calibas 7mo ago
      You seem to be playing dumb here. You realize us "normal people" believe the Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government, and the 4th means the government doesn't get to spy on everybody indiscriminately? And yes, they are spying on everybody. They have access to things like cellphone metadata, which to a normal human being is a very clear violation of privacy. It's also my firm belief that our legal system has been undermining these basic concepts for decades now. It benefits the federal government to make this all very vague, as if modern technology suddenly means you have no expectation of privacy anymore. They've also mixed in some of that wonderfully authoritarian "for purposes of national security". There's actual lawyers saying these same things, if you'd like someone to properly debate with.
      - otterley 7mo ago
        I'm not going to argue over principles, as that's not law, and I largely agree with them. However: > They have access to things like cellphone metadata, which to a normal human being is a very clear violation of privacy. In the U.S., when you study 4th Amendment law in Criminal Procedure, you learn there is a "third party doctrine" that says that if you voluntarily provide a third party with information--even information you consider private-it's the third party's property and you can no longer object to it being sought by the Government. There's a good overview of this on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine The Supreme Court declined to extend the third-party doctrine to tracking one's location via cell-phone metadata in Carpenter v. U.S., 585 U.S. 296 (2018), so it's not absolute.
- keernan 7mo ago
  As a trial attorney for more than 40 years, I'd say these are examples of egregious illegal surveillance of American citizens by the current government: 1. A retired US citizen emailed a DHS attorney urging mercy for an asylum seeker he had read about. Five hours later he received an email from Google advising him the federal government had served Google with a subpoena demanding information about him. Then they followed up by knocking on his door. The federal government's concerted effort to intimidate citizens should concern every American. https://archive.ph/b9ON8 https://archive.ph/b9ON8 2. NYT: https://archive.ph/W5FwO https://archive.ph/W5FwO ICE’s New Surveillance State Isn’t Tracking Only Immigrants A memo from a Department of Homeland Security official reviewed by CNN and sent to agents dispatched to Minneapolis last month asked them to “capture all images, license plates, identifications and general information” on “agitators, protesters, etc. so we can capture it all in one consolidated form.” And the official reportedly provided such a form, called “intel collection.” 3. Moreover, ICE officers have traveled to the homes of protesters. Not to arrest them, because they have done nothing illegal. Rather, ICE was trying to intimidate them by letting them know ICE knows who they are and where they live. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/us/minneapolis-ice-agents https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/us/minneapolis-ice-agents
  - otterley 7mo ago
    Egregious, yes. Concerning, yes. Illegal, I’m not so sure. As a fellow attorney, why do you think they are illegal?[1] Maybe they should be, but our jurisprudence since the 1960s (the “put down the dirty hippies” age) seems to treat the the 4th Amendment not as an expansive right to be left alone but as a narrow one that treats only one’s home as a privacy zone. I found crim pro to be a very distressing and depressing course. Also, that last link to The NY Times article is broken. [1] To suggest that the Government doesn’t know what’s legal and what isn’t stretches credulity. They know; and they’re going to ride as close to that line as possible when motivated by their bosses.
    - keernan 7mo ago
      Just off the top of my head all three examples I provided violate the First Amendment. It is Constitutionally prohibited for the government to track and gather information on citizens because they exercised their First Amendment rights.
Maxious 7mo ago
The Pinkerton National Detective Agency, founded in 1850, operated largely outside the constraints of the Fourth Amendment for much of the 19th century because they were private agents, not government actors. Congress passed the Anti-Pinkerton Act in 1893, which prohibited the federal government from hiring Pinkerton employees or similar organizations.

It's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, but the government acts like they've found a "loophole" because it's private businesses doing the spying.

by calibas 7mo ago

It's a clear violation of the 4th Amendment, but the government acts like they've found a "loophole" because it's private businesses doing the spying.

jaco6 7mo ago

[dead]

verisimi 7mo ago

If corporations and government are acting together, this is fascism (according to Mussolini). It seems that is already the case. It's just we call it 'democracy'. Perhaps 'crypto-fascism' is the right term.

mindslight 7mo ago
"Inverted totalitarianism" is the term you're looking for, although with Trumpism we're flipping to just straightforward totalitarianism. "Crypto-fascism" is applicable to Surveillance Valley's fake strain of "libertarianism", which is more accurately described as corporate authoritarianism.

otterley 7mo ago

As an attorney I’d like to understand why you think there is a “clear” Constitutional violation going on here. What activity, specifically, are you referring to, and what precedent supports your claim?

cucumber3732842 7mo ago
Seems to me like someone's security camera footage, even if held by a 3rd party, would pretty clearly fall under "papers and effects" same as my crap sitting in a rented storage unit does. It's only because we've had a century of legal contrivance that it doesn't IMO.
calibas 7mo ago
You're an attorney and you're asking me why the government spying on everyone is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment?
- otterley 7mo ago
  Yes. You’re the one making the assertion (not just that there is a violation but also that the activity is that “the government spying on everyone”); the burden of proof is thus on you. Attorneys challenge each other as a matter of course in every case before a court. This is how the adversarial system works. Perhaps what you meant to say is that “I don’t like the activity that is happening here,” or “I think some of this might be unconstitutional.” When someone makes a naked blanket assertion about the law, it’s usually a sign that that person doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
  - calibas 7mo ago
    You seem to be playing dumb here. You realize us "normal people" believe the Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government, and the 4th means the government doesn't get to spy on everybody indiscriminately? And yes, they are spying on everybody. They have access to things like cellphone metadata, which to a normal human being is a very clear violation of privacy. It's also my firm belief that our legal system has been undermining these basic concepts for decades now. It benefits the federal government to make this all very vague, as if modern technology suddenly means you have no expectation of privacy anymore. They've also mixed in some of that wonderfully authoritarian "for purposes of national security". There's actual lawyers saying these same things, if you'd like someone to properly debate with.
    - otterley 7mo ago
      I'm not going to argue over principles, as that's not law, and I largely agree with them. However: > They have access to things like cellphone metadata, which to a normal human being is a very clear violation of privacy. In the U.S., when you study 4th Amendment law in Criminal Procedure, you learn there is a "third party doctrine" that says that if you voluntarily provide a third party with information--even information you consider private-it's the third party's property and you can no longer object to it being sought by the Government. There's a good overview of this on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine The Supreme Court declined to extend the third-party doctrine to tracking one's location via cell-phone metadata in Carpenter v. U.S., 585 U.S. 296 (2018), so it's not absolute.
keernan 7mo ago
As a trial attorney for more than 40 years, I'd say these are examples of egregious illegal surveillance of American citizens by the current government: 1. A retired US citizen emailed a DHS attorney urging mercy for an asylum seeker he had read about. Five hours later he received an email from Google advising him the federal government had served Google with a subpoena demanding information about him. Then they followed up by knocking on his door. The federal government's concerted effort to intimidate citizens should concern every American. https://archive.ph/b9ON8 https://archive.ph/b9ON8 2. NYT: https://archive.ph/W5FwO https://archive.ph/W5FwO ICE’s New Surveillance State Isn’t Tracking Only Immigrants A memo from a Department of Homeland Security official reviewed by CNN and sent to agents dispatched to Minneapolis last month asked them to “capture all images, license plates, identifications and general information” on “agitators, protesters, etc. so we can capture it all in one consolidated form.” And the official reportedly provided such a form, called “intel collection.” 3. Moreover, ICE officers have traveled to the homes of protesters. Not to arrest them, because they have done nothing illegal. Rather, ICE was trying to intimidate them by letting them know ICE knows who they are and where they live. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/us/minneapolis-ice-agents https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/us/minneapolis-ice-agents
- otterley 7mo ago
  Egregious, yes. Concerning, yes. Illegal, I’m not so sure. As a fellow attorney, why do you think they are illegal?[1] Maybe they should be, but our jurisprudence since the 1960s (the “put down the dirty hippies” age) seems to treat the the 4th Amendment not as an expansive right to be left alone but as a narrow one that treats only one’s home as a privacy zone. I found crim pro to be a very distressing and depressing course. Also, that last link to The NY Times article is broken. [1] To suggest that the Government doesn’t know what’s legal and what isn’t stretches credulity. They know; and they’re going to ride as close to that line as possible when motivated by their bosses.
  - keernan 7mo ago
    Just off the top of my head all three examples I provided violate the First Amendment. It is Constitutionally prohibited for the government to track and gather information on citizens because they exercised their First Amendment rights.

Maxious 7mo ago

The Pinkerton National Detective Agency, founded in 1850, operated largely outside the constraints of the Fourth Amendment for much of the 19th century because they were private agents, not government actors. Congress passed the Anti-Pinkerton Act in 1893, which prohibited the federal government from hiring Pinkerton employees or similar organizations.