You use the phrase "publicly broadcast" three times. Yet the stuff we're talking about is typically sent out over a wired connection with a single destination. It's neither public nor broadcast.
You make a good point with that, but it's not even remotely the same thing. Just because the third party doctrine exists does not mean our activity is a "public broadcast," nor does it somehow mean that we're not allowed to be upset at these activities.
Your original post basically said that we shouldn't be upset when the government collects our data because we're just shouting it to the world anyway.
With the new post, you're saying that the government can legally collect our data without a warrant if we first give it to someone else. That's a very different point to make!
> You make a good point with that, but it's not even remotely the same thing
I'm sorry, I was just being a little lazy and trying to address both points, but you're right, I didn't take the time to make the association.
> Just because the third party doctrine exists does not mean our activity is a "public broadcast,"
The Internet is nothing but public infrastructure with a commitment to route a packet to an intended destination. A datagram has to publicly state where it came from and where it is going in order for it to be properly routed. It is totally legal for anyone to run something like Wireshark and see how these packets are being routed around.
You clearly don't own all of the wiring and fiber optic cables that your packet travels on so you're always reliant on either public or third-party infrastructure.
> nor does it somehow mean that we're not allowed to be upset at these activities.
You shouldn't be upset when you use the radio in your cellphone to broadcast electro-magnetic signals from your physical location on earth. You should be aware of the repercussions of your activities. Anyone can see that you're broadcasting!
> Your original post basically said that we shouldn't be upset when the government collects our data because we're just shouting it to the world anyway.
Yes, by using the Internet we are literally broadcasting datagrams out on to a vast public network of routers and physical connections. Anyone can easily read this and track the physical location.
> With the new post, you're saying that the government can legally collect our data without a warrant if we first give it to someone else. That's a very different point to make!
Yeah, that's the extreme end of the legal argument. Because you are literally broadcasting information out in to public, the government doesn't need to invade your personal properties in order to search or seize. Therefore they don't need a warrant in order to read through your trash. The reason is because this is impossible to enforce.
Using Twitter is pretty damn close to just writing little notes and throwing them promptly in the trash when you think about it in a certain light! :D
