alt Hacker News> possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment
Does it? An 18th-century tavern owner could keep tabs on the comings and goings of their customers. It would have just prompted pushback when they started sharing that list.
Possession isn’t the problem. Sharing is.
Replies
I feel like the example you want is a Video store owner could store a list of what movies congressmen rented.
Which was trivially not covered by the 4th amendment [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Privacy_Protection_Act
There is a big difference between a tavern owner keeping tabs on the comings and goings of their customers and the government having 24/7 precise location monitoring on everyone in the entire country.
One does not violate the 4th and the other does (though they do it anyway).
I think that comment specifically meant possession by the government.
The tavern owner is not the government. The bill of rights is about restricting the powers of the government, not of tavern owners.
Government is that institution in our society which possesses a monopoly on violence and should be held to a higher standard than a tavern keeper.
Really?
[dead]
No, the bar owner has a right know who's in his bar.
The local or federal government do not have the right, or need to know the whereabouts of the average law abiding citizen. There is no "free" information, all information has a cost, whether it be acquisition or storage. Currently the people are taxed to oppress themselves. There is no choice not to be taxed, there is no consent.