I'd say that very much depends on why you believe the warrant process exists in the first place. I honestly don't know that much about the historical context of search warrants. Do they exist because philosophers of old believed in a right to privacy as an end unto itself? Or do they exist for some more practical reason, like because they were used for extra legal retaliation against enemies of the state, or for intimidation, or to go on fishing expeditions.
Or, why does the protection from self-incrimination exist? Is it because we are concerned that the government might have access to your thoughts? Or is it because the government would torture people to get confessions, and the people wanted to remove the incentive to do so?
Depending on your belief about this, you might feel differently about what should be done about this Google situation. If you believe the latter view in the second paragraph, for example, you might have no problem with the breadth of the search. In fact, you might not even have a problem with involuntary brain scans, provided they were proven accurate. As long as the rule of law is strong and the materials were used only for a defined and limited purpose, you might think it would be better if the government could compel the true personal perspective of the accused.
So this really enters into questions about each individual's perspective on the purpose and value of privacy. I think it might not be accurate to say that people who say it is justified are missing the point. They might just think the point is different from what you think it is.
I think you are spot on with your reasons for why these things actually do exist, but I think there is definitely an argument to be made for why they should actually protect privacy instead of merely inhibiting the government.
My version of the argument goes something like this: It's often said that drivers (in the US anyway) are constantly violating minor traffic laws, and that if the police want to pull someone over, all they have to do is follow them for long enough and they will find a legitimate reason to do so.
I believe that this extends far beyond the sphere of traffic. I think we all accidentally break minor laws way more often than we think we do. We all way overestimate how "good" we are.
If it was possible to automatically punish everyone for every violation of the law, we would quickly realize that many laws aren't actually that important, that they can be broken a little bit, constantly, by basically everyone, and society still functions just fine, and that privacy is more important than perfect enforcement of law.
Of course this might lead to a new equilibrium where we perfectly enforce a smaller set of laws.
All this is to say that I think people think they value law enforcement more than privacy, but if they had the full force of the law brought down on them for every minor violation, they would quickly change their mind. In that way, privacy (in the form of the government not having perfect information) is actually quite valuable.
All of what you said is perfectly valid. That being said, I think it's probable that if we perfectly enforced traffic laws, two things would happen:
1. People would start to build in tolerances instead. The speed limit is 35? Ok, I'll drive between 25 and 30. People would not just say, "Welp, I guess I'm gonna get $200 tickets constantly!" There would be a (very) short adjustment period, and then people would just treat limits as the actual limits.
2. The limits would be changed to actually reflect the unsafe limit.
I don't think either of these are bad outcomes. In fact, I think the world where we perfectly enforce the law and also adjust the law to reflect the actual needs of the citizens is far better than the one we live in today. It is a much better world than the one in which certain real crimes go unpunished due to privacy, all other things being equal.
How? That people think differently about reality and have different motivations and values is not really a new revelation i think? Nor should it surprise anyone that a lot of people believe they are doing the right thing. What changed for you? It seems to be much more interesting then the initial conversation.
What didnt i get?
edit: While it might sound stupid its an honest question. Changing how you think about the world is quite a jump from discussing the origins of warrants. Its a jump i dont understand and I think there is interesting insight to be gained here.
I dont get how the purpose of a warrant is relevant to the discussion about the effects of actions. We are faced with the issue, that technological development has created new opportunities for mass surveillance. Some people might think mass surveillance is a good idea, others dont. Both have their reasons, both are convinced they are right. It has been like this for ever, the only thing new is that new opportunities present themself. Everyone thinks they are right, but some think this means they can tell others what to do. You have pushes of authoritarianism and antiauthoritarianism in every society, depending on your moral believes you will either be in favor or against it. So far goes human history.
>In fact, you might not even have a problem with involuntary brain scans, provided they were proven accurate. As long as the rule of law is strong and the materials were used only for a defined and limited purpose, you might think it would be better if the government could compel the true personal perspective of the accused.
Hits it right on the nail how the argument goes, but i dont see how its related to the question of the true original meaning of a warrant. Its a moral question if you think it should be allowed or not. And since we are stuck together, at least some of us, this means its a political question. Do more of us think its good or bad, and can the other side prevent or do it either way? Can we compel the government to stop this? But framing this as a question of constitutional law instead of a moral question misses the point from my perspective. The point isnt if warrants should cover digital age surveillance. Why would anyone care about this who isnt a fundamentalist proponent of the status quo? Its not the dictatorship of the eternal legal code. Which of course would also just another motivation for your morals and thus your actions.
This just sounds like a religious discussion to me. Similar to, what does the bible say about flying planes? Allowed on Sunday? I first thought people in the discussion were just being pedantic, but i dont get how this changes someones view on the world.
To me its just same old same old, this stark difference has to be interesting to figure out.
It always appeared to me that the spirit of the law is obvious, at least in the broad strokes. The thought experiment with involuntary brain scans, whose admissibility is not obvious when extrapolating from the spirit of current law, was eye opening for me.
NB: I think that's why Norwegian laws come with the rules in effect and associated writeups of why the rules were made this way.
It's far beyond the issue of the inherent purpose of warrants in the first place, because the material reality of the nature of information has changed dramatically.
Practical justifications have to come face to face with reality, and 'searching one's home for drugs' is a lot different than 'reading all of one's thoughts for the last year'.
We are where we are with warrants, so now we have to address the disproportionate issue that can arise with the online world.
Or, why does the protection from self-incrimination exist? Is it because we are concerned that the government might have access to your thoughts? Or is it because the government would torture people to get confessions, and the people wanted to remove the incentive to do so?
Depending on your belief about this, you might feel differently about what should be done about this Google situation. If you believe the latter view in the second paragraph, for example, you might have no problem with the breadth of the search. In fact, you might not even have a problem with involuntary brain scans, provided they were proven accurate. As long as the rule of law is strong and the materials were used only for a defined and limited purpose, you might think it would be better if the government could compel the true personal perspective of the accused.
So this really enters into questions about each individual's perspective on the purpose and value of privacy. I think it might not be accurate to say that people who say it is justified are missing the point. They might just think the point is different from what you think it is.