[mindslight]

Sure, but the Supreme Court also uses narrow implication-following. Existing rules or precedents generate another precedent. And society is doing the same thing with path-dependent adoption of technology.

As computer scientists, we know this can only lead to eventual contradictions. Old concepts are subsumed with new definitions in different abstractions. "Plan to meet up for dinner" used to mean a face-to-face talk when you bumped into someone on the street or, later, over two direct analog wires that were equally ephemeral as long as nobody was a priori recording. Now it means digital messages that are automatically stored indefinitely.

The right to privacy should apply generally to each definition, but when you analyze with local reasoning of course the latter message is voluntarily stored on a bazillion servers and sent over tapped fibre.

Which is why I gave some other concrete examples. Do a plain reading of the 6th and 7th amendments, and wonder why a speeding ticket does not result in a jury trial. But follow the path of legal reasoning that got us to the present condition, and you can see how the ideals were subsumed and discarded.

[tptacek]

I'm really not sure what the rules of evidence have to do with your right to a jury trial in the adjudication of a small fine.

(There are places where you do have a right to full trial over a traffic fine, but you wouldn't want to avail yourself of that right).

[mindslight]

They're both examples of the same general phenomenon - complexity-induced contradictions eroding our rights.

[tptacek]

I'm pretty sure the concept of petty or mechanical offenses for which you aren't entitled to a jury predates the Constitution, so I'm not sure I see the erosion.

[mindslight]

I'm pretty sure the concept of offenses for which you weren't entitled to due process precipitated the Constitution.

I also don't see how a ~$1k punishment for a slight speed infraction is "petty".

[tptacek]

If that were the case, why hasn't contempt of court ever required a jury trial?

[mindslight]

Because judges have an abundance of faith in their judgment being balanced, and so presume themselves autocratic?

Historic violations don't really counter my point - even in the past the map was not the territory. Finding one non-erosion (by virtue of it never have been applied) doesn't change the rights that have eroded.