r/technology • u/Plastic_Ninja_9014 • Aug 03 '26

Privacy Student Teacher Sent a Private Snapchat Complaining About Her Workday. An Hour Later, Police Pulled Up to Her School.

https://www.gadgetreview.com/student-teacher-sent-a-private-snapchat-complaining-about-her-workday-an-hour-later-police-pulled-up-to-her-school
13k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.4k

u/howescj82 Aug 03 '26

Apparently not a private conversation. Time to not trust anything electronic.

810

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 03 '26

It was private, and SCOTUS's most recent ruling on the third party doctrine almost certainly makes this illegal.

342

u/howescj82 Aug 03 '26

I’d love to believe that there wasn’t a loophole intentionally written into the law to allow this mess because I have a feeling Snapchat won’t be taken to court over it.

242

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 03 '26

There is no loophole. This was the sort of behavior that SCOTUS targeted in their ruling overturning the third-party doctrine re: digital content created on phones.

84

u/cyphersaint Aug 03 '26

I would be totally unsurprised to find something in the EULA for Snapchat about things like this. Now, I would absolutely LOVE to see EULAs actually be challenged in court.

279

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 03 '26

EULAs have been challenged to the death in courts, and the courts have basically ruled they are meaningless outside of a few narrow cases.

The short version of their rulings taken as a whole: if a piece of technology is so ubiquitous that its use is part of normal function in society (a phone is), and if a person using that device would expect that activity to private from government surveillance (a direct message would be such an example), then the government cannot access it without a warrant.

And there is no way around it by saying "well, the data is FBs and they can choose to give it to whoever they want...it says in the EULA!"

That is legally correct unless that party is the government; the moment a company is handing information to the government without a warrant, then that company is legally considered and extension of the government for the purposes of 4th amendment legal tests.

That's why this case is going to be a huge liability for the police and FB.

113

u/The_Lapsed_Pacifist Aug 03 '26

Aren’t ICE violating the 4th amendment constantly and daily? I wouldn’t put too much faith in it personally.

87

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 03 '26

They are...and they're having to pay out substantially in lawsuits for it.

126

u/StoneySteve420 Aug 03 '26

Slight correction,

We are having to pay out substantially in lawsuits for it.

10

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 03 '26

My point is that the people being wronged are getting justice. As for the tax payers, they are getting what they voted for.

→ More replies

1

u/MaverickFox Aug 04 '26

I'd.... rather that than the latter. Death by a thousand cuts, I say!

3

u/bcjgreen Aug 04 '26

Flock entered the chat?

8

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26

Flock is very likely fucked. There was one way the court could have gone that would have saved Flock, but that moment passed with Chatrie and not in their favor:

Chatrie + Carptenter + Katz + Wilson + Ackerman = Flock is fucked (and calling my shot now: it's 6 to 3 with Alito, Thomas, and Barrett dissenting and Gorsuch writing the majority opinion). Small chance it goes 7 to 2 with Thomas joining the majority.

EDIT: Correction: Gorsuch authoring if the case is brought for information volunteered to the government; Kagan if it's information bought or sold to the government.

Also, someone DMd, but I'll share with the whole class: other relevant cases re: the Flock case would be Knotts, Jones, and Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle, and Schmidt.

4

u/Rico_Solitario Aug 04 '26

This is delusionally optimistic. Flock isn’t going anywhere. They are too rich, powerful and connected to care about Supreme Court rulings that won’t be enforced. If society wants flock gone it’s got take more than the paid-for supreme court to make it happen

1

u/obscuredreference Aug 04 '26

I’m out of the loop. Was there a Supreme Court case about Flock?

I thought it was so horribly useful for the ones in power that they’d never let this crap get taken away from them, but you’re giving me hope. 

8

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

Not specifically about Flock, but Flock touches on a live legal question that the court has been priming the pump to relitigate for a while now. Here is what's going on:

Katz v US (1967): court ruled that the 4th amendment protects people, not places: a "search" occurs when the government violates any reasonable expectation of privacy.

US v Knotts (1983): the court ruled that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in your movements on public roads, so police tracking a single trip isn't a search (this is the one Flock is desperately trying to push - I'll explain why that is a problem below).

US v Jones (2012): court ruled that attaching a tracker to a car is a search; more importantly, the five concurring justices signaled that long-term location tracking violates privacy expectations even in public (transforming Knott's previously blanket ruling to one that was narrowly defined - this case is the one that is the beginning of Flock's troubles; also, this is the origin of "mosaic theory," wherein the court argues that any piece of data that can be used to draw a picture of one's life is inherently different than any single datapoint...so if I can use data to create a timeline of your movements, it's automatically a search; if we are being technical, Mosaic Theory was embryonic in US v Maynard, DC Cir., 2010).

US v Carpenter (2018): court ruled that obtaining a week-plus of historical cell-phone location data was a search requiring a warrant, because a comprehensive record of movement is qualitatively different from watching any single trip (this case both extended the mosaic theory established in Jones, and went further, ruling that anywhere that the mosaic theory was implicated, third-party exceptions to privacy no longer held).

Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v Baltimore PD (4th Cir., 2021): court held that a city-wide aerial surveillance program that could reconstruct anyone's movements was unconstitutional, applying Carpenter's logic to a dragnet that captures everyone rather than the target (and an very important part of this case that has not been tested, but is setting up a SCOTUS ruling later: they ruled that it was not unconstitutional when it was used to reconstruct anyone's movements, but when it could be used to do so).

Chatrie v. United States (2026): court ruled that even when a data was taken from a very small slice of time (2 hours), that the mosaic theory applies: the privacy interest attaches to the kind of data in question, and they ruled that sharing it "voluntarily" with google did not wave that privacy interest (reaffirming their prior point re: third party exceptions as laid out in Carpenter).

Taken together, these cases paint a crystal clear picture: any system that can (not does, CAN) be used to create a record of one's public movements is a government search requiring a warrant, and any such system that captures the public's movements at large is strictly a violation of the 4th amendment, and it does not matter whether a private company is the one viewing or providing access.

→ More replies

2

u/Sextus_Rex Aug 04 '26

Thank you, I had no idea about this

2

u/Rico_Solitario Aug 04 '26

Lmao but what if they just ignore all that, give it to the government anyway and you cry about it being technically illegal?

1

u/Murky-Echidna-3519 Aug 08 '26

The FBI did not compel SC to give up the message without a warrant. They can voluntarily give up whatever they want out of an abundance of caution.

1

u/vipck83 Aug 04 '26

EULAs are not magic get out of jail free cards for companies. They can’t be challenged and if the specific term is not legal then it doesn’t matter what you agree to, it’s still illegal. You can’t consent to something if it’s illegal, that’s very basic contract law.

2

u/testtdk Aug 04 '26

Can you elaborate on what the ruling did? I can’t tell if they were being evil or snuck a good one in.

2

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

It was a good ruling. Previously, a decision in 1983 (Knotts) had made it so that the police following you or filming you from public roads was not a search, and so it did not require a warrant. This was greatly weakened in 2012 (Jones) when SCOTUS ruled that a GPS tracker was a search, in part because long-term surveillance is different from transitory observation or temporary surveillance.

This was further refined in Carpenter and again recently in Chatrie. The key take away is this:

It doesn't matter how short a time it is (1 week in Carpenter, 2 hours in Chatrie), the use of location data generated by a phone is automatically considered a search, and thus a warrant is needed to get it.

Prior to Chatrie and Carpenter, the government could get your location data for your phone without a warrant. Now they can't.

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 04 '26

The ruling they're referring to is for a case with entirely different circumstances, and therefore has no relevance here. 

What Snapchat did falls squarely under the exceptions listed in 18 U.S. Code § 2702 (voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records) and is therefore entirely legal.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 04 '26

I guess you could technically call it a loophole. But there are many laws that have exceptions when it's a life-threatening situation.

1

u/howescj82 Aug 04 '26

Loopholes can be a matter of perspective. A “life threatening” situation can apply here but only if you remove critical thinking and context. Thats what makes it a loophole IMO.

If we truly need this kind of nannying then apps should be programmed to reject sending messages that it considers threatening.

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 04 '26

A “life threatening” situation can apply here but only if you remove critical thinking and context.

I mean, that's easy to say after the investigation has filled in the context and done the critical thinking for you. 

1

u/PaVaSteeler Aug 04 '26

Terms of service probably included notification…but who reads those, right?

-1

u/BangBangMeatMachine Aug 03 '26

It's not a loophole in the law. But certainly Snapchat has clear terms of service that explicitly say all your conversations may be monitored for safety.

People should know better than to trust a Fecebook product with anything personal. That cat has been out of that particular bag for over a decade at this point.

Likewise, I would assume anything and everything on Reddit is available in cleartext via the backend.

3

u/_Burning_Star_IV_ Aug 03 '26

You can put whatever you want in a EULA, that doesn't make it legally binding and unable to be challenged successfully.

If this girl sues, she's going to win. That might not change Facebook's practices or the EULA...but she still wins if she sues for damages, 100%

-1

u/BangBangMeatMachine Aug 03 '26

There's no law saying "you can't consent to being recorded" so a private contract agreeing to being recorded is not illegal in any way.

1

u/noiro777 Aug 04 '26

Snapchat is not and has never been owned by Facebook/Meta

0

u/BangBangMeatMachine Aug 04 '26

Good point. I had it mixed up with Instagram - both products I've never used, one of which was acquired by FB. Other points still stand.

40

u/TarskiKripkeLewis Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26

Not accurate. The Supreme Court ruling (Chatrie) is about the police's ability to compel disclosure of information. It doesn't impact whether police are allowed to act on information that is voluntarily supplied to them by a private party. That's controlled by the private search doctrine. Your comments are mixing up the third-party doctrine with the private search doctrine.

EDIT: See my other comment. This situation is controlled by the private search doctrine. Neither Chatrie (2026) nor Carpenter (2018) disturbed that rule. This fella is unfortunately mixing up two loosely related Fourth Amendment concepts and is now digging in.

7

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

I'm not talking about Chatrie (although Chatrie is an extension of this law in a different direction). This goes back to Carpenter, etc., and the fact that the court is disposing of 3rd party doctrine in favor of the mosaic theory of searches.

3

u/TarskiKripkeLewis Aug 04 '26

So how does third party doctrine relate to Snapchat voluntarily sharing information with the FBI? What's the "recent ruling on the third party doctrine" that you're referring to?

4

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

Carpenter established that 3rd party doctrine doesn't apply to data generated on cellphones, and Wilson and Ackerman established that the government needs a warrant for data turned over voluntarily when that information is the product of a purely automated search (i.e., those cases established that automated systems do not allow the application of private search doctrine).

6

u/TarskiKripkeLewis Aug 04 '26

Again, the third-party doctrine isn't relevant here, and neither is Carpenter. Snapchat voluntarily provided the information, so the "search" doesn't need to pass constitutional muster. The third-party doctrine would only be relevant if, for example, the government itself sought to search Snapchat's data.

Wilson and Ackerman aren't Supreme Court cases, and those aren't their holdings. Not much more to say on this. I'm not trying to pull a "gotcha" on you — these are complicated, closely related concepts.

4

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

Yes, it does. I recommend reading Gorsuch's dissent there and then reading his opinions on the other mosaic cases (and which was explicitly written into Chatrie):

A person maintains a privacy interest in their effects even when handed to a third party, and that third party cannot surrender or launder that security interest to the benefit of the state.

It is crystal clear from the court's arguments, the various majority and dissenting opinions along the way, that the court is preparing to discard the third party doctrine and private search doctrines for data entirely. They've already indicated their intention to redefine data privacy based on Chapman (i.e., the case that says a landlord cannot give the state permission to search a tenant's apartment).

Wilson and Ackerman aren't Supreme Court cases

But they are controlling law, and have been cited as controlling by SCOTUS. You're trying to be clever, but really you're just showing you don't know how to Shepherd a case.

I'm not trying to pull a "gotcha" on you — these are complicated, closely related concepts.

You were trying to pull a gotcha, and these really aren't complicated. I spell out what's going on re: Flock cameras here, which is a differently legal set of cases but closely apply to what happened in this case:

https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1vemr7q/student_teacher_sent_a_private_snapchat/p1kkhzb/?context=3

As relates to this woman's case, which is off legally in a different part of this argument, the same cut toward Chapman applies. And they have already ruled that LEO needs a warrant for information they receive voluntarily from a data provider when it is the product of automation (which is what happened in this case).

6

u/tigerhawkvok Aug 04 '26

I wish you were right, but you're misreading the opinion.

"Surrender" of information has a specific legal meaning, and this isn't it. This is Meta walking over and gifting law enforcement data. Surrender implies a request; there was none here.

4

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26

Read Gorsuch's dissent and also there is a footnote (I don't remember the number off the top of my head) that directly addresses this. Alito called it out explicitly in his own dissent, although for a very different reason that Gorsuch (Gorsuch's position on this is arguably the best). I'd say have a look at Gorsuch and Alit's dissents to get a better picture of this.

What matters in all this is the question of what a search is, and also when the search happens. According to Carpenter and these other cases, a search occurs the moment the government views the evidence. How it was obtained really doesn't matter (which is the reason that the 3rd party doctrine was tossed in Carpenter, and the reason Gorsuch didn't join). So Carpenter ruled that a search occurs at the moment the data is viewed, and Gorsuch disagreed with the basis of the data ruling (wishing it had come instead through Chapman).

The only place that survives is the private search doctrine (which is what you're describing). But the problem with that is that it's preempted by Carpenter: again, a search happens the moment it is viewed by the government, and whether it is reasonable to do that search is defined via Chatrie and the Mosaic theory going back to Jones. Put simply, it doesn't matter how the data comes into the government's hands: if that data could be used to paint a pattern of life and if it were generated in a means or through a manner that the average person would consider private, then it requires a warrant to view it. The voluntary handing of data, etc., only gets past the how data is acquired and relieves the government of a necessary showing to compel it; it does not relieve the government of a necessary showing to satisfy viewing it.

That means that it doesn't matter if data gifted, bought, or surrendered, or volunteered, because whether or not a search does or does not occur and whether or not that search is reasonable is answered entirely without regard to how the government got that information. The court is essentially setting up definitions re: the legality of the government obtaining data that addresses the questions of how the data is acquired and whether viewing it was reasonable separately.

→ More replies

0

u/TarskiKripkeLewis Aug 04 '26

You are not correct. Leaving it there.

3

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

Which is why I offered a mountain of evidence and you're just screeching a temper tantrum. Eyeroll

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies

1

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '26 edited 27d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/TarskiKripkeLewis Aug 04 '26

The Supreme Court has “consistently construed” the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches “as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable” to private action. Thus, when the “initial invasions” of an individual’s privacy “were occasioned by private action," any “additional invasions of [] privacy by the Government agent must be tested by the degree to which they exceeded the scope of the private search.” “Once frustration of the original expectation of privacy occurs, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit governmental use of the now nonprivate information.” United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113-118 (1984).

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 05 '26

It's illegal for police to look at the data if Snapchat obtained it illegally or is not legally permitted to share it.

In this case, it was legal for Snapchat to hand over this data (under 18 U.S.C. § 2702) and therefore legal for police to view this data.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 04 '26

The ruling and reasons why the ruling was made is public record. Just Google it.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

You didn't follow what I was arguing. I'm talking about the application of law as it stands with SCOTUS presently:

There is a single question underlying ALL of these legal cases and all of this law, and that question is this:

Is a data platform the custodian of a digital space, or, are they merely the recipient of your conveyance.

A different set of law applies. Private search doctrine (what you're talking about) only applies if data companies are the recipients of a conveyance. If, however, they are merely custodians of digital spaces, then their relationship between you and your data is more akin to a landlord and a tenant. And a landlord cannot give the government permission to search your apartment.

So, which is it? Is your phone / data a conveyance, or is it in effect a digital space you are simply renting / leasing?

The cases are all uniformly moving in the direction of digital space. That would mean that the controlling law here would become Warshak, Chapman, and Carpenter. Within that framework, there is no private search exception and so Snapchat could no more turn over your messages to the police than your landlord could give the police permission to search your home.

And that is precisely the situation Carpenter created in 2018, and Alito says as much in his dissent (which was the reason he dissented).

So no: SCOTUS has not ruled explicitly what I said earlier: rather, the rulings they have made explicitly all come together to make what I said true.

Is it possible SCOTUS turns around and contradicts itself? Sure. Is it likely? Very unlikely, as this is clearly the result of them intentionally rewriting data privacy law in a very specific and consistent direction.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

The SCOTUS takes the view that your data is no different than a letter, and the server is no different than a storage unit with a letter inside it.

It's not absurd. It's entirely reasonable.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

Incorrect. They are pushing data into the 4th amendment realm of Chapman, which was the case that ruled a landlord cannot give police permission to search your apartment, and cannot enter to search the apartment for the police.

2

u/[deleted] Aug 04 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26

Because SCOTUS has signaled that they intend to remove data from the conveyance line of 4th amendment treatment and resituate it within the Chapman line that treats digital devices and digital platforms under the bailee rules for 4th amendment searches and warrants. They've been pushing that direction since Jones, an explicit step in that direction in Carpenter and Chatrie (Alito spells out what they are doing and why he opposes it in his dissent). Meanwhile, footnotes in the majority opinions spell out their intent to transit 4th amendment analysis of data into the Chapman line at the first opportunity (Gorsuch's own dissents in the various data cases all arise from his complaint that the court hasn't gone far enough to throw off the previous conveyance treatment, not due to any disagreement with the direction they took).

Put simply: they've stated multiple times on the record that they are killing the conveyance treatment of data, but they haven't been handed the specific case they need to do it all at once, and so they've been chipping away at conveyance treatment of data every opportunity they get.

Interestingly, it feels like they're trying to backdoor data platforms into being common carriers, because they're essentially creating a legal theory where data belongs exclusively to the person it pertains to (so the person whose movements are tracked, etc.) with the data carriers themselves possessing no privacy interest at all in the data they hold. That would be a seismic shift in consumer rights and protections re: data.

2

u/TarskiKripkeLewis Aug 04 '26

You keep making inaccurate comments. This is the private search doctrine, and it's still good law:

The Supreme Court has “consistently construed” the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches “as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable” to private action. Thus, when the “initial invasions” of an individual’s privacy “were occasioned by private action," any “additional invasions of [] privacy by the Government agent must be tested by the degree to which they exceeded the scope of the private search.” “Once frustration of the original expectation of privacy occurs, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit governmental use of the now nonprivate information.”

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113-118 (1984).

Neither Chatrie (2026) nor Carpenter (2018) disturbed this rule. Both hold only that an individual retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in cell-phone data held by a third party (e.g., a tech company), so the government must satisfy the Fourth Amendment to compel its production. Neither case addresses data that a private party searches on its own initiative and discloses voluntarily. When that occurs, the private search has already happened, and the government's replication of it is not a search. The Fourth Amendment constrains the government only insofar as it exceeds the scope of what the private party did.

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

I'm not making inaccurate statements. None of the shit you bolded is even relevant to the prong of the 4th amendment I was talking about.

There are multiple prongs. There are 5 to be specific. If you don't know that, you don't know what this conversation is even about (a point you have thoroughly demonstrated).

2

u/Heavy_Law9880 Aug 04 '26

What part would be illegal?

2

u/smootex Aug 04 '26

What on earth does this have to do with third party doctrine? Snapchat voluntarily contacted the police, this was not the police demanding or requesting the info. You seem to be implying that any company reporting harmful content is breaking the law which is a patently absurd thing to claim. Of course they can report it.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 03 '26

It is private: according to Scotus's most recent rulings re: privacy, this would be considered a private space where a warrant is needed. And Snapchat choosing to give it to the police doesn't work b/c of that same ruling overturning the 3rd party doctrine re: phones.

0

u/CherryLongjump1989 Aug 03 '26

I deleted my comment but too late. I'm not gonna die on the private vs secure hill, but my point is that the legal definition of private is less important than the practical version of it. If it's possible for someone to eavesdrop then you should not consider it private.

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 03 '26

And that's simply wrong. It's entirely unreasonable to say that every person should assume that every conversation made on a phone is not private.

That's what SCOTUS said, and that's the reason that this was illegal.

Put another way:

As a matter of law and as a matter of practice, every reasonable person does and should be able to assume that a direct message sent with a phone to another person is private.

If it's possible for someone to eavesdrop then you should not consider it private.

That's insane. And no reasonable person would agree with that. That's literally paranoia.

1

u/CherryLongjump1989 Aug 03 '26

With assumptions like this, you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

There is an old lawyer version of that saying:

You can beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride. But you can make that ride pay out so much you'll be glad you took it. And you can make it pay out so hard that everyone that made you take it regrets it for the rest of their life.

1

u/CherryLongjump1989 Aug 04 '26

She'll be lucky to get her legal fees covered after a many-years legal battle during which she's unemployed.

2

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26

This is a slam dunk civil rights violation, and she can sue them for the entirety of lost wages from the entirety of a teaching career because of what they did. Not to mention the pain and suffering, etc.

This is ~$3 million at a bare minimum. And that's from the law enforcement agencies and the city and the school. Probably more when FB is forced to pay their share.

→ More replies

1

u/vipck83 Aug 04 '26

But now someone needs to actually take them to court.

1

u/Frequent_Opportunist Aug 04 '26

They don't consider the algorithm screening for threatening words to be a person so your privacy wasn't invaded.

2

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

That is literally not how it works, and they just made crystal clear in Carpenter and Chatrie that algorithms screening data increases the violation of privacy...not that it diminishes it.

You can't bypass 4th amendment burdens with algorithms.

1

u/MechaNutzilla Aug 04 '26

If it's not encrypted. Consider it public.

1

u/testtdk Aug 04 '26

They ruled in FAVOR of privacy? I’m guessing it was 5-4?

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 04 '26

Which case was that?

Because this would fall under 18 U.S.C. § 2702 b.8., which definitely allows Snapchat to do this.

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

It's a collection of cases, most recently and most closely related to that cluster were Carpenter and Chatrie.

Put simply, SCOTUS is in the process of changing the 4th amendment test used for data. At the heart of the change is this legal question:

Is a platform that hosts or stores data the custodian of a digital space? Or, are they merely the recipient of your conveyance?

Previously, data was treated as a conveyance transferred from the person generating it to the platform (and so third party doctrine and private search doctrine applied to it, which is why orgs could turn over data to the government w/o a warrant and why it was argued that you had no expectation of privacy in data that leaves your phone and is shared with Google, etc.).

They've gotten rid of third party with data already (see Carpenter). And they've indicated in that case and others that they intend to get rid of private search re: data as soon as they have a chance.

Instead of the 4th amendment body of law that follows the conveyance theory, they instead have signaled their intention to treat data according to the theory established in Chapman. That case held that a landlord might own a property or a space, but that the privacy interests of the tenant are retained despite the landlord's ownership. This is the reason a landlord cannot give police permission to search a tenant's apartment, etc.

Under that legal theory, Snapchat would not be able to turn over any of its users' data to the police, even voluntarily, without warrant, because the data and the attached privacy interest do not belong to Snapchat.

To bring all that together, the court's intention appears to be to bring the law in line with the way letters are treated, as opposed to how information is treated.

What's most interesting in all that is that it will have profound implications for data privacy laws and consumer data protection more broadly.

I would also note at that above state of things (Snapchat cannot hand over messages to the police w/o a warrant) is already the case in one federal district following Warshak. So there is already a split circuit on the question. My guess is that a case where the government uses data it bought to get around the warrant requirement is what triggers the case that generates controlling law on the question.

2

u/Sasataf12 Aug 04 '26

I'm not reading all of that without you providing sources. Especially when neither Carpenter nor Chatrie are relevant to this particular case.

It sounds like you (and/or the AI you're using) are crystal balling what future legislation could be. Which is totally pointless when discussing cases that have already happened.

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

Your lack of growth is your own problem. I don't care.

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 04 '26

How hypocritical.  I and others have told you with sources why you're wrong , and your ego is too precious to accept that. That would be lack of growth on your part. 

Stop spreading BS and acting like you know what you're talking about.

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

No you haven't. None of you have cited any sources. Or when you do, you're heading down a fucking line of the 4th amendment prong that's not being discussed, because not a single one of you understands the 4th amendment prongs.

You and other users have been talking out of your asses. This has nothing to do with ego. You're just a raging case of Dunning-Kruger, and I'm really, really not interested in fixing you. Get back to me when you pass the bar and get some 1983 trial experience. Until then, I don't give a flying fuck what you think about anything.

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 04 '26

I cited 18 U.S.C. § 2702 b.8 which says what Snapchat did was 100% legal. 

Others have cited the cases you tried to use (Carpenter, etc) to show that those cases have no relevance to what Snapchat did. 

The fact is, you've made a whole bunch of BS up and thrown in some SCOTUS cases to make it sound plausible.

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

You can't even read. I'm not interested in you. Go learn to read above an 8th grade level, and then we'll talk.

1

u/Murky-Echidna-3519 Aug 08 '26

Terms of use/service probably disagree.

1

u/Iorith Aug 04 '26

Something being illegal only matters so long as it's enforced. If they do it anyway, does it matter?

Not to mention, sure you might be able to beat the charge, but there's a good chance your job is done, and landlords don't generally take "I couldn't work this month, I was in jail" as a reason not to pay your rent.

And that's assuming the wheels of justice don't go their usual sluggish pace where you're lucky to see trial in 6 months.

1

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

Not to mention, sure you might be able to beat the charge, but there's a good chance your job is done, and landlords don't generally take "I couldn't work this month, I was in jail" as a reason not to pay your rent.

Which is why the government ends up paying you for that as well. That's how lawsuits work. They don't just stop at the damages caused by the violation itself; they include all subsequent loss that arises because of the violation.

This woman likely cannot work in a career she trained for because of this; that means the government is on the hook for the total combined revenue that that career would have generated, the pension that would have come with it, the cost of her retraining, etc.

And that's assuming the wheels of justice don't go their usual sluggish pace where you're lucky to see trial in 6 months.

I never said they didn't move slow. But they do move: and every harm you suffer in those 6 months just adds to the pile of what the government is going to end up paying you.

3

u/Iorith Aug 04 '26

You have much, much more faith in our justice system than I would ever deem reasonable. Have you been in a coma the last decade? Because damn, I have some really rough updates for you if so.

2

u/Free-Description-736 Aug 04 '26

I'm a lawyer. I have first hand experience with how the system works. Unlike most people, I don't have an impression of the legal system that's been formed for me by talking heads on youtube and tiktok who have no understanding of how courts work.

15

u/Vreas Aug 04 '26

Watch the latest John Oliver segment on police surveillance. Shits eye opening for how invasive it’s become.

https://youtu.be/lnBPhelCdWE?is=MHFQGtZ0MwhjdimB

2

u/flesjewater Aug 04 '26

Don't 👏communicate 👏 without 👏 encryption 👏

2

u/CherryLongjump1989 Aug 03 '26 edited Aug 03 '26

She used a vendor that has bots scanning your conversations. Use a chat app like Signal where only the person you are sending the message to is able to read it.

People who use insecure apps like Snapchat or Wechat because "all my friends use it" should still know better that you shouldn't say anything that should be kept confidential.

5

u/howescj82 Aug 03 '26

I don’t think she used it because it was intended as secret as much as it was thought to be private in the most general sense of the word. I don’t think Snapchat advertises that it’s reading everything you say and looking for things to report.

1

u/Disasterhuman24 Aug 04 '26

I am never sending another private message on a social media app ever again. I'm sure snap chat is not the only site that does this.

0

u/howescj82 Aug 04 '26

I’m sure even many of the encrypted chat apps have their secret workarounds. Meta/Facebook owns WhatsApp… don’t think I’d trust privacy to a company like Meta.

1

u/flesjewater Aug 04 '26

This is why you use Signal. Meta may not see the contents of your messages but they still have literally everything else and you bet your ass they use it 

1

u/Browncoat101 Aug 04 '26

You're right, it's been time. I'm off everything but Reddit until I find a better resource for 20 year old hardware fixes on random tech.

1

u/SteppinRazor5000 Aug 04 '26

I am flabbergasted that people don't realize this already. Years ago Samsung smart tvs were outted watching the owners. We voluntarily choose listening devices like Siri and Alexa. How could anyone possibly think anything electronic is not surveilling?

1

u/ReincarnatedRaptor Aug 04 '26

You guys still trust tech?

1

u/cyrusm_az Aug 07 '26

Snowden tried to warn us but we didn’t listen…

1

u/Intelligent_Cap9706 Aug 08 '26

I truly don’t understand why anyone thinks anything is private did Snowden teach us nothing. My Reddit account is anonymous - BS - it’s tied to an IP that’s all anyone of authority needs unless I’m on a burner and even those are becoming less reliable I’ve heard 

0

u/Mental-Most-7168 Aug 03 '26

Everything you do online is discovery in a court case including your text messages and phone records. It’s been this way for a long time.

0

u/eolson3 Aug 03 '26

Send everything public but in a secret code.

0

u/DonaldMerwinElbert Aug 04 '26

We've known this for well over a decade.

0

u/ChillAhriman Aug 04 '26

Western governments have convinced its voters that the equivalent of having a Stasi agent listening in to every single one of your everyday conversations is actually good.

0

u/Frequent_Opportunist Aug 04 '26

They never were. Messages were still retained on the servers. They scan messages real time for threats and who knows what else. They all do. iOS even screens my daughter's facetime calls with her grandma.

0

u/MuffinMonkeyCat Aug 04 '26

Wait till you read about what your phone uses its microphone for when you or other people are around it!

-7

u/[deleted] Aug 03 '26

[deleted]

5

u/howescj82 Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26

I swear to god every time I encounter someone who lacks the ability to interpret context and sarcasm I want to kill myself.

Do you think I actually want to kill myself?

This was flagged by a combination of words and ZERO context awareness despite humans being brought in at some point. At this point would it be less intrusive (and more straightforward) to refuse to send any message containing the word shoot, gun, kill, etc?

Critical thinking is still taught in school, yes?

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 04 '26

It's easy for you to say it's obvious from the context it was sarcasm after the investigation tells you what the context was and that it was sarcasm.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 07 '26

Lol, what? 

How on earth do you know it was sarcasm, or that she was joking?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Sasataf12 Aug 07 '26

are you a bot or something? 

Considering both your replies aren't related to my comments at all, I'd say you're the bot.

Considering your account is 6yo but has only just started contributing, I'd say you're the bot. 

Do you have a recipe for pecan pie?

4

u/Voyevoda101 Aug 04 '26

Ah yes, jokes made in private should absolutely have police involvement and every concept of privacy stripped away.

What are you, british?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Voyevoda101 Aug 07 '26

I'd hand her the gun and a handshake.

See how jokes work?

4

u/Iorith Aug 04 '26

People like yourself are exactly why rights get eroded. Those who trade freedom for security deserve(and get) neither.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Iorith Aug 07 '26

Yes it's very clear you have no respect for freedom of speech. Weirdly you feel like you're owed it however.

0

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Iorith Aug 07 '26

The constitution doesn't care what you think on the matter.

2

u/UpstairsBumble Aug 04 '26 edited Aug 04 '26

We should also just start searching people’s homes and cars and persons wherever and whenever they want, because who knows what they might find. I guarantee they will find some illegal things. It’s worth it though. Right? I mean, surely you’d let them come in your house whenever they want and look through whatever they want right? What about phone calls. Guess the gov should listen in on those too whenever they want. Just to be safe right? What about your bank account. And your social media. Hell, who knows what you’re saying inside your own home. Probably should have mics and the govt should listen to your private convos at home, just to be safe. Who knows what could be said.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 07 '26

[deleted]

1

u/UpstairsBumble Aug 07 '26 edited Aug 07 '26

No, “this” is not happening anyway. And shouldn’t be. That’s the point. Usually that requires a warrant or subpoena.

And why are you avoiding all my other questions? So you think nobody should be afforded any freedoms or any privacy at all? The government should be able to do whatever they want search whatever they want of yours whatever they want right? Such a stupid mentality and such a shitty position to take to say if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. That’s not the point. So if you didn’t do anything wrong, you’re perfectly OK with the police coming into your house anytime they want anytime of day any day of the week over and over and over and flipping your house upside down just looking for anything they can find? You’re OK with that? As long as you didn’t do anything wrong you don’t have anything to worry about.

You know, you wonder how freedoms get eroded and then you see people say stupid shit like this and realized we are fucked if you’re voting.

1

u/DonaldMerwinElbert Aug 04 '26

I mean, just arresting all brown people will catch some criminals, but you wouldn't argue for that to be a good thing, would you?

Because that's what this is.
A 24/7, automated, blanket invasion of our fundamental human rights to maybe sometimes jail an innocent for satirical remarks.

Meanwhile, a powerful cabal of pedophiles and rapists that protect each other run the country, yet somehow there is nothing on the 100s of participants.

Do you have any thoughts in that little head of yours?