Thread

1. tantalor · 1790856794 · focus · HN ↗

   The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

   It's self explanatory.

   1. wat10000 · 1790858242 · focus · HN ↗

      I’m always confused when people say this. It’s vague as heck! That one little word in there, “unreasonable,” makes it completely up for interpretation.

      1. bad_haircut72 · 1790858566 · focus · HN ↗

         Do you think this is a reasonable use of power?

         1. ceejayoz · 1790859462 · focus · HN ↗

            Plenty will say yes. We know this.

            One of the Constitution's big failings is this sort of thing; deeply vague wording. What counts as interstate commerce? What counts as reasonable? What's considered press activity? What's considered illegal speech?

            If you were writing a new one today, you'd define some stuff more.

            1. bad_haircut72 · 1790860457 · focus · HN ↗

               Im asking you though.

               1. ceejayoz · 1790861722 · focus · HN ↗

                  No, you're asking someone else; I'm just pointing out why it's a bit of a pointless ask.
            2. everforward · 1790866796 · focus · HN ↗

               Thats partially that we insist on interpreting it in this contorted lens of “how the founding fathers meant it”, when words like “reasonable” seem like they’re clearly meant to reflect the current opinion of the populace. If people find it unreasonable, it is, and vice versa.

               I don’t think “interstate commerce” is unclear at all. That’s one where started with an end goal in mind and rationalized everything in between. There is no sane English reading of that passage that resembles the current interpretation at all. We just repeatedly mentally Google Translated it to Spanish and back until it was vague enough to allow what we wanted.

            3. goatlover · 1790880137 · focus · HN ↗

               That's what lawyers and judges are for. To argue over and interpret the meaning of laws, regulations, contracts, constitutions. It's all human wording and concepts, which are not deterministic, one-time interpretable things that a compiler would understand. They have to be understood in context of legal history and contemporary culture.

               The law isn't computer science as much as Silicon Valley would like to make it so.

               1. wat10000 · 1790880371 · focus · HN ↗

                  That's beside the point. Even within that framework, clear wording makes a huge difference. The fact that you have to convince a human with your argument means there's always some room for interpretation, but that room gets a lot smaller when the law is worded clearly.

                  1. [deleted] · 1790884931 · focus · HN ↗

                     [deleted]

               2. ceejayoz · 1790887048 · focus · HN ↗

                  > That's what lawyers and judges are for. To argue over and interpret the meaning of laws, regulations, contracts, constitutions.

                  That doesn't mean we can't learn from mistakes and make certain things clearer.

                  I think the Founding Fathers would've had some thoughts on Flock cameras and Facebook.

         2. wat10000 · 1790872888 · focus · HN ↗

            What's the point of asking this here? Regardless of whether or not I think this is reasonable, my point about the wording being vague and subjective stands.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.