[samrus]

Sure but the possession itself of that data without a warrant violates the spirit of the 4th ammendment. So its time that loophole was closed so its not a an issue anyway

I actually would be fine with the authorities having the ability to process this data to solve crime and stuff, but only as long as there were checks and balances and it was happening according to the constitution, which it is not right now

[JumpCrisscross]

> 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.

[dekken_]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

You've said shat I meant to say more eloquently. That's my point. The bar owner can possess the information about their own bar without problem. The issue is when they share it with others, voluntarily or under coercion.

[dekken_]

No you still don't get it, the bar owner can share the information with whoever he likes.

The government, does not own the country, it's not "their bar".

[JumpCrisscross]

> The government, does not own the country, it's not "their bar"

Never mentioned the government. If I shop at a store and the store owner starts selling my information to everyone under the sun, I'm going to keep an eye out for alternatives. I don't mind them collating it. I do when they share it.

[lesuorac]

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

[rexpop]

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.

[ben_w]

In this context, I believe the tavern is a metaphor for Facebook etc., and hence it's not one tavern but a business which tried to own all taverns, pubs, and restaurants, who has made the beer (and food) free because juicy gossip sells more opportunities for ad revenue, and all the governments want in on that.

Also, "monopoly on violence" is deputised in a lot of ways, including "Stand Your Ground" laws, and "Castle doctrine" (which may or may not include a workplace), and what's allowed for trespass and if trespass includes not leaving when told to.

(And even when it's more of a first amendment issue than a fourth, there's also occasional news stories about people getting sued for leaving negative reviews of a business because the business snuck in a no-disparagement clause into the terms and conditions).

[OGWhales]

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).

[stetrain]

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.

[hackable_sand]

Really?