this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
321 points (97.9% liked)

Selfhosted

39293 readers
295 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tal@lemmy.today 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)

The Fourth Amendment will affect police, but it won't restrict a random person who is given access to something from turning over whatever data they want to police.

Say I hire a painter, and the painter is painting my house's interior, and sees a bloody knife in my house. He can report that to the police. But, remove the painter from the picture, and the police could not enter to look for such a thing absent a warrant.

'course, the flip side of that is that if the police get a warrant, then they can enter whether I want them in the house or not, whereas the painter can only enter because I choose to let him in.

[–] gullible@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not just police, any armed investigatory unit or state sponsored militia. The idea of a “police” force was pretty vague at the time, so the umbrella covers much more than it initially intended to.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Which makes no difference in the provided example.

[–] gullible@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

I never said it did, just a relevant fun fact.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That analogy is tired in the age of mass data collection without consent

[–] tal@lemmy.today 2 points 10 months ago

I'm just telling you that that's the way things legally are. You're arguing about how you feel that they should be.

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Is my car a random person? I thought it was an object that I own.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

You're getting a bit off-track here. The scenario is this: the company that provides the software for your care collects data. This part is unconcerned with Amendment 4. Amendment 4 prohibits the State from collecting information and searching unreasonably. It does not prohibit the private company that provides the software from doing so. That is what privacy laws are intended to protect against, not Amendment 4.

Amendment 4 also does not prevent the company that collected that data from providing it to the police upon request. Amendment 4 (and the rest of the US Constitution) applies only to the State. Private companies and private individuals are not bound by it.

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Youll own nothing and like it