[d_sem]

I would say we reinterpret the 18th century definition of "papers". I quite like Alan Kays comment in a talk sometime in the 1980's where he said something of the effect that a blue thought in the 1960's was to realize that paper is just computer memory you can't change.

I think if you try to define what was interpreted by "papers" in a pre-digital context you would conclude it is sufficiently analogous to many things in our modern world. By "papers" they likely meant diaries, personal mail, accounting logs, ship manifests, personal inventories, order histories, receipts for travel. All things which may have been written down on a piece of paper which are now logged on our phones.

If you take an originalist argument that the constitution is static and cannot be reinterpreted/amended you have to first justify why you think amendments like the banning of slavery or women's voting rights amendments are not legitimate in the United States. We certainly have a culture of defining rights which our predecessors did not explicitly call out in the early years of its history. Even male suffrage (non-land owning males) in the late 19th century was a revolutionary step in the definition and expansion of citizens rights.

[Ajedi32]

> If you take an originalist argument that the constitution is static and cannot be reinterpreted/amended you have to first justify why you think amendments like the banning of slavery or women's voting rights amendments are not legitimate in the United States

Holy straw man Batman! What kind of crazy "originalist" believes the constitution can't be amended? There's a literal provision in the constitution for amending the constitution!

Originalism just means you don't use the courts to invent new rights out of thin air, or nullify rights you don't agree with, not that you can't amend the constitution at all. And even by originalist standards I don't think interpreting "papers" to include digital records is a stretch, anymore than interpreting "press" to include blog posts is.

[wnevets]

> I think if you try to define what was interpreted by "papers" in a pre-digital context you would conclude it is sufficiently analogous to many things in our modern world. By "papers" they likely meant diaries, personal mail, accounting logs, ship manifests, personal inventories, order histories, receipts for travel. All things which may have been written down on a piece of paper which are now logged on our phones.

Considering data digital as papers is perfectly reasonable but the government still isn't searching or seizures your papers. They're buying someone elses "papers".

[lukeschlather]

This whole concept that "oh a private company has stolen my papers, well that's not a problem" doesn't seem to reflect a strict textual reading of the 4th amendment.

[wnevets]

But the private company isn't stealing your papers, they're recording their own.

[Retric]

A doctor can hold your papers even if they created them and you’re unaware they exist.

Why wouldn’t this apply to metadata about you? It’s just as much your information as the results of a cholesterol test.

[wnevets]

Do you believe your cholesterol test results are protected by the 4th?

[Retric]

Personally yes though the courts disagree except under HIPPA police need a search warrant to get them.

So culturally we do think they should be even if the legal system disagrees.

[wnevets]

The only thing my original comment only talks about what is protected by 4th amendment. If your test results aren't protected by the 4th, why bring them up?

[Retric]

I think it’s covered by the 4th amendment based on the words as written and the intent at the time of writing it. So, yes I absolutely think the 4th amendment protects such documents.

The Supreme Court has uses a narrower definition. That’s doesn’t mean they are correct but the justice system isn’t actually based on the constitution directly it’s based on past rulings by the Supreme Court.

My bringing up HIPPA was simply pointing out that even though the legal system doesn’t protect them based on the 4th, it does protect them. Further the reason this part of HIPPA exists is the same reason the 4th was written.