The big drug database in the sky: One firefighter’s year-long legal nightmare(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
The big drug database in the sky: One firefighter’s year-long legal nightmare
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/05/the-big-drug-database-in-the-sky-one-firefighters-year-long-legal-nightmare/
8 comments
>Who are the victims in this supposed "crime?"
I've been working on this theory harm I tentatively call "moral environmentalism". It is actually very similar to anti-abortion or anti-homosexual stance: some people feel that certain behaviors taint the "moral environment", and this constitutes real harm to them personally. The mechanism of harm is usually, but not always, predicated on the existence of an enforcing deity. The idea is that if you don't work to stop harm (even self-harm of others) that you are somehow culpable.
A deity is not required, however: some claim the these morally 'dirty' actions will result in other wrong actions that do have victims. (it's usually a cover for a deity, though). You see this in the anti-drug (and anti-alcohol, historically) movement, with claims that legalized drugs will cause an orgiastic violent apocalypse.
I've been working on this theory harm I tentatively call "moral environmentalism". It is actually very similar to anti-abortion or anti-homosexual stance: some people feel that certain behaviors taint the "moral environment", and this constitutes real harm to them personally. The mechanism of harm is usually, but not always, predicated on the existence of an enforcing deity. The idea is that if you don't work to stop harm (even self-harm of others) that you are somehow culpable.
A deity is not required, however: some claim the these morally 'dirty' actions will result in other wrong actions that do have victims. (it's usually a cover for a deity, though). You see this in the anti-drug (and anti-alcohol, historically) movement, with claims that legalized drugs will cause an orgiastic violent apocalypse.
I think your theory has merit, but is somewhat flawed in the area of deity. Either that, or I'm an outlier. I'm a very religious person, and I think the war on drugs is stupid. I believe God created plants and herbs to benefit people and that drugs like marijuana should be legal and free to grow and use. I don't agree with the control and taxation of such drugs (or alcohol) and think government should get themselves out of the business altogether. A person should have the right to choose for themselves without any nanny-like interference from the state. We don't need government doing that for us.
The same is true if someone wants to be gay. They have the right to choose that lifestyle for themselves. I don't agree with abortion, however. Not because of some societal impact, but because it steals away the agency of another. I think people have every right to choose for themselves, but no right whatsoever to chose for another; including the unborn.
The same is true if someone wants to be gay. They have the right to choose that lifestyle for themselves. I don't agree with abortion, however. Not because of some societal impact, but because it steals away the agency of another. I think people have every right to choose for themselves, but no right whatsoever to chose for another; including the unborn.
.. if someone wants to be gay. They have the right to choose that lifestyle ..
This really irks me. People do not wake up one day and go "oh gee, let's see, i'll be attracted to a different gender from now on!" It's this attitude that, unchecked, does things like killing Turing.
[abortion] steals away the agency of another
This is retarded too, i'm very sorry, but somebody has to say it. So this clump of cells that was created entirely by the actions of the parents suddenly has rights, but the host, whose body it is (and nobody else's, mind!), doesn't get to choose? Why this sudden flip? On day 1 this person (non-pregnant woman) has full agency according to you, then on day 2 once pregnant, she has magical incubator-only-no-agency restrictions?
I'm sorry, this has nothing to do with you being religious or not (as you rightly point out), but your views don't correspond with a place i would like to live in.
This really irks me. People do not wake up one day and go "oh gee, let's see, i'll be attracted to a different gender from now on!" It's this attitude that, unchecked, does things like killing Turing.
[abortion] steals away the agency of another
This is retarded too, i'm very sorry, but somebody has to say it. So this clump of cells that was created entirely by the actions of the parents suddenly has rights, but the host, whose body it is (and nobody else's, mind!), doesn't get to choose? Why this sudden flip? On day 1 this person (non-pregnant woman) has full agency according to you, then on day 2 once pregnant, she has magical incubator-only-no-agency restrictions?
I'm sorry, this has nothing to do with you being religious or not (as you rightly point out), but your views don't correspond with a place i would like to live in.
Of course people choose to be gay. Having sex is an action, not a state of being. My nature is to want to have sex with every woman on the face of the planet. If I opt to do so, I become an adulterer, philanderer, womanizer, etc. Or, if I choose not to have sex with every woman I meet, I am not an adulterer, even though my nature is to be one.
Oh, I forgot to comment on your second point regarding abortion. I'm not sure why the concept of losing rights based on personal choices is so foreign to you when similar occurrences happen throughout our country on a daily basis.
I agree. I mean, on day one, I am free to do as I wish in my home; but on day two, just because I invited this guy into MY house (and nobody else's, mind!), I can't kill him if I want? Why this sudden flip?
/sarc
/sarc
Because supposedly embryo in my example != adult with agency in your example. Also, homes aren't bodies.
I'm not even sure if you're disagreeing, sarc-tag or not :)
I'm not even sure if you're disagreeing, sarc-tag or not :)
[deleted]
[deleted]
The cynic in me finally thinks that it simplifies to this:
Pills can make you feel good. You aren't supposed to just be able to feel good without doing some sort of "work" to "earn" it. So the pills are cheating. We'll give you a concession if your circumstances make you feel extra bad, but only until you reach the normal level of "feel-good" that should be afforded to you by your station in life.
The whole "war on drugs" exploits this involuntary tic in popular opinion.
Pills can make you feel good. You aren't supposed to just be able to feel good without doing some sort of "work" to "earn" it. So the pills are cheating. We'll give you a concession if your circumstances make you feel extra bad, but only until you reach the normal level of "feel-good" that should be afforded to you by your station in life.
The whole "war on drugs" exploits this involuntary tic in popular opinion.
It's all about "if somebody has something I don't, I'm worse off as a result". It's the same psychology that leads to people telling a lunch lady she can't make such good food because their kids' lunch-lady-prepared food isn't as good[1], so, therefore, their kids are worse off than they would be with everybody having crappy food. People try to justify it as "we should all be equal" or some garbage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/annika-eriksson-swe...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/annika-eriksson-swe...
From the link: "Update: The day this article was published, it was announced that Eriksson will be able to continue baking her own bread and providing healthful vegetable options. The incident has been called a 'misunderstanding,' according to Swedish news source dt.se."
In general I agree with your sentiment, but not to the extent that you do. 40 people a day die from prescription painkiller overdoses. They are, in fact, addictive. And they can and will kill you if abused. (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20111101/4...)
I'm very much a libertarian kind of guy and part of me wants to say "well so, its their life, let them do what they want". But these deaths have serious societal repercussions: the removal of an otherwise productive body and the orphaning of children.
I don't like shades of gray, but this seems like the government overreacting to a problem. I don't think people should go to jail because of substance abuse, I do think that people in legitimate pain deserve to be relieved from that pain, but I also think the government has a legitimate role in regulating these drugs.
I'm very much a libertarian kind of guy and part of me wants to say "well so, its their life, let them do what they want". But these deaths have serious societal repercussions: the removal of an otherwise productive body and the orphaning of children.
I don't like shades of gray, but this seems like the government overreacting to a problem. I don't think people should go to jail because of substance abuse, I do think that people in legitimate pain deserve to be relieved from that pain, but I also think the government has a legitimate role in regulating these drugs.
> On a related note, I have a family member (in the US) who works in a clinic, the sole purpose of this clinic is to get people with chronic or in some cases even terminal conditions off of narcotic painkillers. These people provably are in pain, but the system in the US is such that they'll kick people off of painkillers who actually need them simply because of some kind of "narcotic painkillers are bad" circular logic which nobody can explain to me.
People with long term pain need an early referal to a pain management clinic. They need short term pain meds to allow them to do physiotherapist guided exercise.
Long term use of pain meds doesn't work for most people. This is not about some moral panic over heroin; it should be about the unsuitability of ineffective and risky medication.
When someone with long term pain takes opiate meds for that pain they start needing to increase the dose; this puts them at risk of harm from toxic doses.
Short term pain is different; use opiates for that.
Here's a programme with interviews with people at pain clinics. These people had active addictions to opiate pain meds; they were taking huge quantities of pain meds; but importantly they were not getting adaquate pain relief.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04wv052
People with long term pain need an early referal to a pain management clinic. They need short term pain meds to allow them to do physiotherapist guided exercise.
Long term use of pain meds doesn't work for most people. This is not about some moral panic over heroin; it should be about the unsuitability of ineffective and risky medication.
When someone with long term pain takes opiate meds for that pain they start needing to increase the dose; this puts them at risk of harm from toxic doses.
Short term pain is different; use opiates for that.
Here's a programme with interviews with people at pain clinics. These people had active addictions to opiate pain meds; they were taking huge quantities of pain meds; but importantly they were not getting adaquate pain relief.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04wv052
Whether dose increase happens during long term pain treatment with opioids depends on the opioid.
The common mechanism for dose increase with morphine and similar opioids that act on mu-opiod receptors is their upregulation of NMDA receptors. NMDA upregulation increases pain sensitivity. Wash, rinse, repeat - the patient is on the dose escalation escalator.
The opioid methadone is an NMDA antagonist (along with ketamine, memantine, and dextromethorphan, for example), making it much less likely to induce dose escalation when prescribed for otherwise intractable chronic pain.
Methadone has a bad reputation because of 1) its association with treatment of heroin addiction and 2) its pharmacokinetics. The latter means that its blood concentration increase (and decrease, on cessation of the drug) changes slowly (think a week or so). When it's prescribed, it takes awhile to titrate for effect. If the process is rushed, it's possible to get lethal levels following several days after dose increase. It's basically a PID controller problem with a long phase lag between control input and effect.
In a clinical setting that doesn't involve the difficulties of multiple drug abuse, it's a very useful medication for otherwise intractable chronic pain.
Long way of saying that the opiate dose escalation issue is complicated.
The common mechanism for dose increase with morphine and similar opioids that act on mu-opiod receptors is their upregulation of NMDA receptors. NMDA upregulation increases pain sensitivity. Wash, rinse, repeat - the patient is on the dose escalation escalator.
The opioid methadone is an NMDA antagonist (along with ketamine, memantine, and dextromethorphan, for example), making it much less likely to induce dose escalation when prescribed for otherwise intractable chronic pain.
Methadone has a bad reputation because of 1) its association with treatment of heroin addiction and 2) its pharmacokinetics. The latter means that its blood concentration increase (and decrease, on cessation of the drug) changes slowly (think a week or so). When it's prescribed, it takes awhile to titrate for effect. If the process is rushed, it's possible to get lethal levels following several days after dose increase. It's basically a PID controller problem with a long phase lag between control input and effect.
In a clinical setting that doesn't involve the difficulties of multiple drug abuse, it's a very useful medication for otherwise intractable chronic pain.
Long way of saying that the opiate dose escalation issue is complicated.
> Someone please explain: Who are the victims in this supposed "crime?"
Children, spouses, parents, family, and friends of people whose free will is compromised by their addiction to prescription drugs? It's a "victimless crime" only from a very narrow perspective of what constitutes social harm.
Children, spouses, parents, family, and friends of people whose free will is compromised by their addiction to prescription drugs? It's a "victimless crime" only from a very narrow perspective of what constitutes social harm.
And the solution to prescription drug addiction is prison time or fines? How does that help the families?
No, it's not. But: 1) it's legitimate to control those who enable addicts by criminalizing illegal distribution of prescription drugs; and 2) the fact our current response may be a bad idea does not mean that the conduct has no victims and it's not legitimate for society to formulate some response.
If our response is causing more harm than the "crime" itself does it make sense to continue down that road just because we can't come up with anything better?
You can argue that treatment, etc, is a better response than criminalization. I agree. But that's a different argument. Arguing that drug use has no victims is an attack on the legitimacy of any response to drug use, and ignores the huge numbers of people hurt by other peoples' drug addictions.
People all over the country are routinely treated with heroin (diamorphine) in a clinical setting. It is a very useful narcotic. If you've had nose surgery, even a simple corrective procedure, you've been treated with cocaine. None of these people leave the hospital craving drugs and looking to score. They do not become addicted.
Addiction does not follow from treatment with narcotics. What you think of as harmful addiction follows from the junkie subculture created by criminalization
The harmful effects of drug addiction are in fact a result of severe criminalization of narcotics. If you suffer from debilitating pain, you will go out of your way to suppress it. If no one will sell you pain killers legally, you will get them illegally.
Indeed, if doctors could legally prescribe opiates for chronic pain sufferers, most of the illegal market would disappear. There would indeed be no crime. People in pain would get their medication for a few dollars and go on having normal lives. Calling these people addicts really is a way of ostracizing them, which only hurts people. True, they might be addicted to their medication. Their pain is now manageable too, really a fair trade off I think. Even more so when a daily dose costs just pennies.
Addiction does not follow from treatment with narcotics. What you think of as harmful addiction follows from the junkie subculture created by criminalization
The harmful effects of drug addiction are in fact a result of severe criminalization of narcotics. If you suffer from debilitating pain, you will go out of your way to suppress it. If no one will sell you pain killers legally, you will get them illegally.
Indeed, if doctors could legally prescribe opiates for chronic pain sufferers, most of the illegal market would disappear. There would indeed be no crime. People in pain would get their medication for a few dollars and go on having normal lives. Calling these people addicts really is a way of ostracizing them, which only hurts people. True, they might be addicted to their medication. Their pain is now manageable too, really a fair trade off I think. Even more so when a daily dose costs just pennies.
[deleted]
According to the order of dismissal, the state admitted that it had “insufficient evidence to establish the culpable mental state of the Defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and that dismissal prior to trial is in the interest of justice.”
I'm sure it had nothing to do with his attorney filing an appeal, showing he was ready to fight a law that was far too lenient towards police access, which might get the law overturned and make other, easy convictions suddenly impossible to get.
The Third Party Doctrine needs to go.
I'm sure it had nothing to do with his attorney filing an appeal, showing he was ready to fight a law that was far too lenient towards police access, which might get the law overturned and make other, easy convictions suddenly impossible to get.
The Third Party Doctrine needs to go.
So, if the officer _had_ gotten a warrant (which I assume would be more limited in scope than 'everyone'), and had come across similar information, it would be completely reasonable that he investigate it, right?
I'm also curious if they caught the original perpetrator. Tampering with narcotics would be tough to pull off in our agency... To get access to the narcs you have to swipe a ProxCard and enter a pin to access a safe (logging a timestamp attached to your identify), which gets you to a locked metal box and a numbered seal (which is checked twice daily). Any tampering would be caught within ~12 hours, and would be easily traced back to the card and pin number of the person who accessed it.
I'm also curious if they caught the original perpetrator. Tampering with narcotics would be tough to pull off in our agency... To get access to the narcs you have to swipe a ProxCard and enter a pin to access a safe (logging a timestamp attached to your identify), which gets you to a locked metal box and a numbered seal (which is checked twice daily). Any tampering would be caught within ~12 hours, and would be easily traced back to the card and pin number of the person who accessed it.
The officer never would have had probable cause for a warrant for this individuals information though, since he didn't even work at the sites that had the missing/tampered drugs.
Sure, obviously the warrant would likely be far more limited in scope (i.e. only people that had access to the drugs at the time), but the same scenario is certainly still possible.
[deleted]
I think in most states, when you obtain a warrant you can't collect evidence for an unrelated crime and use that for future prosecution.
> I think in most states, when you obtain a warrant you can't collect evidence for an unrelated crime and use that for future prosecution.
As I understand it, generally:
If, in the course of executing a warrant, you find items that meet the description in the warrant but which provide evidence of a different crime than the one that motivated the warrant, you can seize them and use them for future prosecution.
If, in the course of executing a warrant, you discover items that are not what is described in the warrant but which would provide evidence of another crime, you generally, IIRC, cannot seize them, but your discovery of them during the execution of the warrant can support an affidavit for a new warrant identifying them.
As I understand it, generally:
If, in the course of executing a warrant, you find items that meet the description in the warrant but which provide evidence of a different crime than the one that motivated the warrant, you can seize them and use them for future prosecution.
If, in the course of executing a warrant, you discover items that are not what is described in the warrant but which would provide evidence of another crime, you generally, IIRC, cannot seize them, but your discovery of them during the execution of the warrant can support an affidavit for a new warrant identifying them.
There's something super strange about how this article is written. There's a very heavy emphasis on how the government invaded this poor fireman's privacy and endangered the adoption process of two young children. The fireman is emotional, and feels victimized by the police and is even sueing the mayor, the main argument of the article seems to be that the police has too much information about people.
But when you extract just the factual statements from the article there's a whole different picture. The police was investigating a pretty serious crime. One of their tools in this investigation was checking medical records of employees of the fire department to find irregularities that might point to someone with motive to steal opiates. Instead of finding a direct motive they found out a person was committing fraud with prescription drugs. The person was charged, but eventually the charges were dropped because they couldn't round out the evidence, the reason is unclear.
Did this person really commit prescription drug fraud? Did he make money off that? Is that the sort of crime that should throw a wrench in an adoption process?
I obviously don't know the guy, but it seems a bit weird to me to just disregard the idea that the authorities have hard evidence of him circumventing a law. Using the properties of that guy that make him seem like a stand-up guy just to make a larger point about privacy feels a bit disingenuous.
But when you extract just the factual statements from the article there's a whole different picture. The police was investigating a pretty serious crime. One of their tools in this investigation was checking medical records of employees of the fire department to find irregularities that might point to someone with motive to steal opiates. Instead of finding a direct motive they found out a person was committing fraud with prescription drugs. The person was charged, but eventually the charges were dropped because they couldn't round out the evidence, the reason is unclear.
Did this person really commit prescription drug fraud? Did he make money off that? Is that the sort of crime that should throw a wrench in an adoption process?
I obviously don't know the guy, but it seems a bit weird to me to just disregard the idea that the authorities have hard evidence of him circumventing a law. Using the properties of that guy that make him seem like a stand-up guy just to make a larger point about privacy feels a bit disingenuous.
Marlon Jones (the Deupty Fire Chief mentioned) had "a double-knee replacement in 2009 and had been dealing with chronic back pain since 2000. His three doctors prescribed different painkillers and muscle relaxers."[1] That was enough to get him charged for prescription fraud. That doesn't seem over-zealous to you?
Further, these are medical records. You know, things that we all get HIPAA notices for every time we go to a doctor. I have to go through a pain in the ass process every time I want to get two of my own doctors to talk. Police could just bypass that, without any probable cause (Feds still can).
Phone record searches require probable cause. Financial and personal records require probable cause. Prescription records? Wide open to the police to comb through any time they like.
As a person who has had different controlled substances prescribed by three doctors this year, this is frightening as hell.
As for Mr. Pyle, "Firefighter Ryan Pyle had also been dealing with chronic back pain, and after a five-day stint in the hospital for an infected tooth, was also prescribed painkillers on several occasions. Police saw these prescriptions in the database and charged Pyle with one felony count."[1]
The assumption of guilty until proven innocent (and he must be guilty if the police were looking at him, right?) is revolting. The ability of police to peruse records at a whim and destroy people's lives is even more so.
1. http://www.kutv.com/news/features/local-news/stories/Utah-39...
Further, these are medical records. You know, things that we all get HIPAA notices for every time we go to a doctor. I have to go through a pain in the ass process every time I want to get two of my own doctors to talk. Police could just bypass that, without any probable cause (Feds still can).
Phone record searches require probable cause. Financial and personal records require probable cause. Prescription records? Wide open to the police to comb through any time they like.
As a person who has had different controlled substances prescribed by three doctors this year, this is frightening as hell.
As for Mr. Pyle, "Firefighter Ryan Pyle had also been dealing with chronic back pain, and after a five-day stint in the hospital for an infected tooth, was also prescribed painkillers on several occasions. Police saw these prescriptions in the database and charged Pyle with one felony count."[1]
The assumption of guilty until proven innocent (and he must be guilty if the police were looking at him, right?) is revolting. The ability of police to peruse records at a whim and destroy people's lives is even more so.
1. http://www.kutv.com/news/features/local-news/stories/Utah-39...
> Instead of finding a direct motive they found out a person was committing fraud with prescription drugs.
Where does it say that? All I see is this:
Pyle had been prescribed short-acting and long-acting opiate-based painkillers for years after being diagnosed with an inoperable mid-back disc herniation from a dirt-bike accident.
If that counts as evidence of fraud sufficient for criminal charges to be filed, I think we have a problem.
Where does it say that? All I see is this:
Pyle had been prescribed short-acting and long-acting opiate-based painkillers for years after being diagnosed with an inoperable mid-back disc herniation from a dirt-bike accident.
If that counts as evidence of fraud sufficient for criminal charges to be filed, I think we have a problem.
Evidence only counts if you can't get the victim to plead guilty to a lesser charge. A bit of trial by media, career damage, pressure on the family, legal costs and who is going to contest a charge. Sadly society doesn't seem to care about the occasional Aaron Swartz getting caught in the machine.
I feel conflicted about this.
On one hand, a nice guy has had his life upended during the most stressful phase of parenthood.
On the other hand, having a sympathetic defendant has paved the way for meaningful reform of third-party doctrine.
On one hand, a nice guy has had his life upended during the most stressful phase of parenthood.
On the other hand, having a sympathetic defendant has paved the way for meaningful reform of third-party doctrine.
This seems like a Rand Paul issue.
It's your fault, not the doctors that legally gave you drugs goy!
Doctor shopping usually means going to multiple doctors and keeping them in the dark about each other.
Whether or not you agree this should be a crime (see UnoriginalGuy's comments), current laws do make this a crime.
And it's hard to imagine how the doctors could be implicated in that crime--essentially, they are the ones being duped.
Whether or not you agree this should be a crime (see UnoriginalGuy's comments), current laws do make this a crime.
And it's hard to imagine how the doctors could be implicated in that crime--essentially, they are the ones being duped.
But isn't the point of the database to allow doctors to know if there are interactions with other things a patient may be taking? Is other prescription information hidden unless there is a conflict, or does each doctor have access to the patients prescription history? If they can see the history, then they should be able to decide if he's seeing multiple doctors to get more drugs. If that history is hidden from his doctor, why should the police get to look just because?
At a higher level, let's assume for a moment that 3rd party data should not be protected by the 4th amendment. That does not mean the database maintainer is obligated to hand over records to the authorities. It just means they can if they want to without violating a persons rights. The DB owner is certainly allowed to say "come back with a warrant" with will of course require probable cause.
At a higher level, let's assume for a moment that 3rd party data should not be protected by the 4th amendment. That does not mean the database maintainer is obligated to hand over records to the authorities. It just means they can if they want to without violating a persons rights. The DB owner is certainly allowed to say "come back with a warrant" with will of course require probable cause.
I disagree that third party doctrine is outdated, as the article states. The fact is this: the Constitution says nothing about "privacy" or "information." The literal text of the 4th amendment prohibits essentially what are trespasses (to one's house, person, papers, or effects) in the name of gathering evidence. The whole "expectation of privacy" concept is itself a judicial bolt-on, and to go further and pretend that people have an expectation of privacy in records that were never their own property to begin with strains reason.
It's not like third party records did not exist in 1791. The framers, being lawyers and businessmen, would have been intimately familiar with the concept of entrusting their person information to the documents of third parties. Had the framers intended "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" to actually mean "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects [and their doctors' or accountants' or lawyers' concerning them]" they could have written the text that way. They didn't.
It's not like third party records did not exist in 1791. The framers, being lawyers and businessmen, would have been intimately familiar with the concept of entrusting their person information to the documents of third parties. Had the framers intended "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" to actually mean "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects [and their doctors' or accountants' or lawyers' concerning them]" they could have written the text that way. They didn't.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
-- Ninth Amendment to the Constitution
-- Ninth Amendment to the Constitution
Sure, but if the "right to privacy" doesn't come from the 4th amendment, where does it come from? The 9th amendment says that the Bill of Rights is not the only source of rights. But it is not by itself a source of rights.
The Third-Party Doctrine dates back to the time of the framers of the Constitution. Not merely the idea that there are third parties that have searchable documents, but the Constitutionality of the resultant searches.
Whether or not that turns out to be true, I still don't care for Rayiner's argument. Attorney-client privilege is also older than the Constitution, and the framers didn't see fit to mention it here either. I think their intent was to get the broad outlines right and let future generations hash out such details.
In keeping with that intent, the phrase "their papers and effects" is not precisely defined. I think it's up to us to hash out the appropriate meaning for our day and age. Pace Rayiner, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to imagine that that phrase was not necessarily intended to encompass only papers and effects that happen to be within one's house.
In keeping with that intent, the phrase "their papers and effects" is not precisely defined. I think it's up to us to hash out the appropriate meaning for our day and age. Pace Rayiner, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to imagine that that phrase was not necessarily intended to encompass only papers and effects that happen to be within one's house.
Attorney-client privilege isn't a Constitutional right, it's just an evidentiary privilege. And it can be lost by disclosure to third parties. Moreover, you're glossing over the fact that much of the information held by third parties doesn't fit within any conception of "your papers and effects." Even if we assume that your Google Docs are covered, what about information like your facebook friends? Those database records linking you to other facebook users aren't your documents, they're Facebook's.
How does the Third-Party Doctrine date back to the framers? I'm pretty sure it wasn't coined until the 60s, but are there court cases from earlier than that?
I'm trying to track down the case that made me think that and starting to think I'm crazy. Still looking!
It's a little weird because in '67, the court redefined the 4th around the idea of expectation of privacy (Katz), and Miller and Smith followed from that redefinition. So you might have happened across something relevant under the previous scheme, like Boyd in 1886.
The constitution was meant to be a living document. That is why it is amenable.
Also the idea that the framers could have seen anything like digital data collection is preposterous. Just because they had records doesn't mean they had any sort of access to the monitoring of your documents like we do today. The scale just want there.
There is an episode on true detective where one of the detectives goes through old case files. He has stacks of then and has to search them onelaw at a time. Compare that to a key word search or a elastic search.
Could the third party law apply to Dropbox or Google drive. Those are my documents, but stored by a third party. I sure hope warrants are needed for officers to go through my files on Google servers.
We need to look at the constitution with new eyes and re work it for a digital age.
Sorry for any Grammer issues I'm on my phone.
Also the idea that the framers could have seen anything like digital data collection is preposterous. Just because they had records doesn't mean they had any sort of access to the monitoring of your documents like we do today. The scale just want there.
There is an episode on true detective where one of the detectives goes through old case files. He has stacks of then and has to search them onelaw at a time. Compare that to a key word search or a elastic search.
Could the third party law apply to Dropbox or Google drive. Those are my documents, but stored by a third party. I sure hope warrants are needed for officers to go through my files on Google servers.
We need to look at the constitution with new eyes and re work it for a digital age.
Sorry for any Grammer issues I'm on my phone.
So amend it. Don't create a privacy right out of whole cloth. Respect for a court's authority comes from the premise that they're at least somewhat neutral arbiters of the words on the page. When legal interpretations become divorced from the text, that undermines the legitimacy of the courts.
Re: Google docs. Third party doctrine definitely should apply. If a Google engineer doesn't need a warrant or your permission to dig through your files on Google's servers, they should be fair game for a subpoena compelling them to turn over those documents. No different than how subpoenas can compel accountants to disclosure financial documents pertaining to their clients.
Re: Google docs. Third party doctrine definitely should apply. If a Google engineer doesn't need a warrant or your permission to dig through your files on Google's servers, they should be fair game for a subpoena compelling them to turn over those documents. No different than how subpoenas can compel accountants to disclosure financial documents pertaining to their clients.
>Re: Google docs. Third party doctrine definitely should apply. If a Google engineer doesn't need a warrant or your permission to dig through your files on Google's servers, they should be fair game for a subpoena compelling them to turn over those documents.
Well, individual engineers working for Google can't access the files of customers, partly because of incidents in the past where Google employees abused this access. Does that alter how the law should treat them?
Well, individual engineers working for Google can't access the files of customers, partly because of incidents in the past where Google employees abused this access. Does that alter how the law should treat them?
It is completely outdated. Everybody today stores a very large amount of a their "papers and effects" online, storage that is provided by third parties. The transfer of those papers and effects brings more, unknown, third parties into the loop. Literally nobody who is not in some way literate in technology and law believes that, when they send an email to their lawyer, they have made it public.
The law needs to reflect society's expectations because most people are not criminals by the default of having laws reflect what is normal in society. Break that, and you end up with people not caring about any laws ("in for a penny, in for a pound", and all that). In this case, the Third Party Doctrine fails miserably (but then, so do a lot of other laws).
The law needs to reflect society's expectations because most people are not criminals by the default of having laws reflect what is normal in society. Break that, and you end up with people not caring about any laws ("in for a penny, in for a pound", and all that). In this case, the Third Party Doctrine fails miserably (but then, so do a lot of other laws).
I agree we need a formal right to privacy in the form of a constitutional amendment rather than expecting justices on the Supreme Court to discover one in the 'penumbra' of other amendments; rulemaking should not take place in the shaodws.
A problem is that the Constitution has become the secular equivalent of a religious document as a result of the US culture wars, and is now referenced in dogmatic rather than pragmatic fashion. As a result, any politician that goes on the record in favor of a constitutional overhaul is denounced as a tools of shadowy political interests; thus the political fringe have become rabid defenders of the constitutional status quo by piling on to frustrate any efforts at reform.
A problem is that the Constitution has become the secular equivalent of a religious document as a result of the US culture wars, and is now referenced in dogmatic rather than pragmatic fashion. As a result, any politician that goes on the record in favor of a constitutional overhaul is denounced as a tools of shadowy political interests; thus the political fringe have become rabid defenders of the constitutional status quo by piling on to frustrate any efforts at reform.
> I disagree that third party doctrine is outdated, as the article states.
I agree. It isn't outdated, it's just wrong - and it's been wrong all along.
> they could have written the text that way. They didn't.
Most likely because it seemed self-evident to them. Keep in mind, the Framers, as brilliant as they were, were hardly perfect, and their language has been ambiguous in more than one place. In fact, you could argue that the Constitution is riddled with holes and contradictions. Look at the language around the 2nd Amendment. Look at how their is an enumerated powers clause, but also a "necessary and reasonable" clause, and all the consternation that has caused. Heck, consider the 3/5's Compromise, which does not exactly show the Founders in terribly good light.
I agree. It isn't outdated, it's just wrong - and it's been wrong all along.
> they could have written the text that way. They didn't.
Most likely because it seemed self-evident to them. Keep in mind, the Framers, as brilliant as they were, were hardly perfect, and their language has been ambiguous in more than one place. In fact, you could argue that the Constitution is riddled with holes and contradictions. Look at the language around the 2nd Amendment. Look at how their is an enumerated powers clause, but also a "necessary and reasonable" clause, and all the consternation that has caused. Heck, consider the 3/5's Compromise, which does not exactly show the Founders in terribly good light.
It would be a huge understatement to claim that the US has a strange obsession with so called prescription narcotics. Sending doctors and patients alike to jail for supposed overuse or over-subscription.
Look, yes, there is a public interest case where someone is known to be selling or allowing others to be selling such medications onto the black market. But in many of these case (most?) that isn't really the case, or at least they have no evidence of that.
So, again, what exactly is it they're trying to accomplish? Why is the victim? Why do they care?
On a related note, I have a family member (in the US) who works in a clinic, the sole purpose of this clinic is to get people with chronic or in some cases even terminal conditions off of narcotic painkillers. These people provably are in pain, but the system in the US is such that they'll kick people off of painkillers who actually need them simply because of some kind of "narcotic painkillers are bad" circular logic which nobody can explain to me.
I'd really like someone to explain to me why the prescription of painkillers isn't a matter best left to patients and doctors in most cases where there is no suggestion of resale or other corruption. It just boggles my mind that the police are getting into people's personal treatment plans and calling their painkillers illegal.