Yes, and they are not, which is precisely why we have separate laws that explicitly assure us of the privacy of these documents.
As for sibling comments that exclaim that this doctrine contradicts the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, consider that very intelligent people (Supreme Court Justices) who are explicitly trained in interpreting laws and especially the Constitution, and who are selected partly for this precise talent, have thought otherwise. In light of this circumstance, it may at least be reasonable that it is you who are not properly interpreting the meaning of the fourth Amendment.
Yes, put complete trust in the same judicial system that moves judges off of cases when they don't like the rulings. Especially when those rulings are centered around the exact handwavy unjust fourth amendment violations that justify the program in question here.
I don't know if you're seeing what i'm seeing, but there appears to be a war going on over this issue. Why should i trust the very capable people on this side of the fence, and not the very capable people on the other? Because you said so?
I'm not telling you your position is wrong; I'm telling you to doubt your position.
I myself share, I think, your opinion: this sort of collection ought not to be allowed. However, I am also aware that I have reasons to doubt my position.
Oh. Ok. Yes, it's worth going to the trouble of reading into exactly why this is the ruling. I am in fact playing armchair judge. I wish i didn't have to, but i've lost faith in my judicial branch on these matters.
No Supreme Court justices have ruled on this. There have been two federal judges to issue a ruling so far, and if you'll recall the last ruling was the exact opposite. This debate is very much not decided.
Regardless of the 4th amendment, we have separate laws that protect our communications, much in the same way we protect our medical records. The only imaginable argument in favor of these transgressions are that "it's not illegal when the government does it"
> Regardless of the 4th amendment, we have separate laws that protect our communications, much in the same way we protect our medical records.
The ACLU raised some of those separate laws in this case, but those claims were dismissed for procedural reasons, including that Congress had only waived soveriegn immunity with regard to Section 215 orders to allow the recipients of the orders to challenge them, not the subjects of the orders.
There's no need to defend the transgression when no one with the interest in challenging them is permitted to challenge them.
The big problem here is that the entire idea of sovereign immunity -- the embodiment of the idea that the King is above the law, adapted to circumstances where there is no King -- is directly contrary to the concept of government bound by the rule of law.
Of course, there is growing chorus of voices that believe the 3rd party doctrine needs to change, including comments by Justice Sotomayor in the recent US v. Jones case, which I've quoted elsewhere in this thread and are worth reading to get a sense of how some members of the current Supreme Court may vote if and when the Court decides to hear these NSA cases.
You are correct, both in interpreting me and in providing valuable context to the discussion.
My only point was that people who I would a priori believe to be intelligent, reasonable, and competent have found the 3rd-party doctrine valid. They may not have been "right", in whatever sense I mean that, but they are not a priori wrong, which many of our ancestor comments seem to be assuming.
As for sibling comments that exclaim that this doctrine contradicts the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, consider that very intelligent people (Supreme Court Justices) who are explicitly trained in interpreting laws and especially the Constitution, and who are selected partly for this precise talent, have thought otherwise. In light of this circumstance, it may at least be reasonable that it is you who are not properly interpreting the meaning of the fourth Amendment.