We can all observe the world in the moment. Police can obtain warrants to wiretap (or the digitial equivalent) suspects in real-time. That's fine!
The objection is that we are ending up with laws and rulings that require a recording of history of everyone by everyone - just so the police can have the convenience of trawling through data everyone reasonably felt was private and shouldn't exist except transiently? Not to mention that perhaps the state should pay for all this commercially unnecessary storage? Our digital laws are so out-of-touch with the police powers voters actually consented to - that mail (physical post) and phone calls shall not be in intercepted except under probable cause (of a particular suspect performing a specific crime) and a judge's consent. Just carry that concept forward.
On a technical level, I feel a "perfect forward secrecy" technique should be sufficient for implementers. A warrant should have a causal (and pinpoint) effect on what is collected by providers. Of course we can also subpoena information that everyone reasonably expected was recorded (i.e. not transient and private). This matches the "physical reality" of yesteryear - the police can't execute a warrant for an unrecoreded person-to-person conversation that happened two weeks ago; you need to kindly ask one of the conversents (who have their own rights to privacy / silence, are forgetful, and can always "plead the 5th").
> Not to mention that perhaps the state should pay for all this commercially unnecessary storage?
Unfortunately, that often creates incentive for the business to error on the side of sharing too much with the authorities, even when proper procedure (warrants) have not been followed. It's the only way to retroactively get payed for all that storage and for the code to retrieve that data.
I know of smaller companies that have been charging since at least 2014.
Cellphone location data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_v._United_States
Thermal imaging a home: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
Biometric unlocking: https://cdt.org/insights/circuit-court-split-lays-the-ground...
In these cases, privacy, or rather, the constitution, does supersede all other laws.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/communications_law/public...
Beyond that, no, it didn’t impact anything other than abortion.
When the SCOTUS ruled the constitution protected the right to engage in gay sex, and later gay marriage, precidents were overturned.
Conservatives claimed this might make it easier to overturn Roe. It didn’t.
Roe wasn’t in danger until SCOTUS had six reliable anti-Roe justices.
The reasoning behind Roe was generally regarded as tenuous even by the justices that supported it. Overturning it was required to defend the government’s Constitutional authority for agencies like the FDA, which was undermined by inconsistencies introduced by Roe v Wade. Eventually those judicial inconsistencies come home to roost.
tl;dr: Roe being overturned had little to do with privacy and more to do with protecting specific regulatory powers from being unconstitutional using the same reasoning introduced in Roe v Wade.
Removing such decisions from Federal purview was an elegant solution to the problem, with the practical effect of deferring all such decisions to voters at the State level.
Speed cameras only operate on public roads. The camera in the store is operated by the store owner. In both cases one of the parties involved in the transaction (driving, purchasing) is involved in enforcement. It is clear in both cases that these measures protect everyone and they have clear limits also.
Better examples would be police searching your home all the time, whenever they want (This maps to device encryption).
Or store owners surveilling competing stores / forcing people to wear cameras 24/7 "to improve the customer experience" (This maps to what Facebook / Google try to do, or what internet wire tapping does).
What? How does OpenAI map to your home at all? This is pure nonsense. You seem to have entirely dismissed the comparison to driving a little too out of hand.
The internet is, like the roads, public infrastructure. You can't claim that encryption makes all traffic on the public infrastructure as private as staying home.
You sound like one of those "free man of the land" guys: "I'm not driving your honor, I was traveling."
Quick question. Should your percieved "right to privacy" supersede all other laws?
To extrapolate into the real world. Should it be impossible for the police to measure the speed of your vehicle to protect your privacy? Should cameras in stores be unable to record you stealing for fear of violating your privacy?