Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>More to the point, this theological business of determining where the expectations of privacy are is exactly the business of declaring what is and isn't private that you're asking them to work out

I'm asking for clear-cut hard cases, as opposed to ad-hoc divinations. Oh, and that those clear cut cases not be based on vague premises like "expectation".

It should be "these cases are private, enforcing what our society -as represented by lawmakers- believes ought to be kept private". Versus guessing what some founding fathers or amendment authors meant when they said "expectation" and whether this or that place should be "expected to be private" or not.

>where "unreasonable" is a term of art that effectively means "it's up to the judiciary".

Sure, and this is the problem I'm pointing. "Unreasonable" is an open ended term, that doesn't settle anything, and keeps people guessing. In 2023 this person went to court without knowing whether their car is allowed privacy or not. That's not a 21st century law, that's like some ancient oracle prophesy that can be read 20 odd ways.

You know, like that other term of art, about a "millitia", that has lead to centuries of theological arguments about the number of well regulated angels that can stand on the top of a pin.




What you want is a civil law system, rather than the common law system we actually have in the US.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: