JasSmith

Google is on a tear. First Bard, then Gemini, now snippets injected into search results. All spectacular failures.

Some of you people are going to become deeply depressed when Trump wins in November.

Because they are required to by law in Switzerland, and would face sanction if they did not.

No it was tried as a 1st amendment issue. It needs to be tried as a 4th amendment issue which it actually it.

The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to exclude not only homeless individuals’ privacy interests, but also their ability to move around in public spaces. The Fourth Amendment only covers police interactions with civilians where there is a seizure. However, an interaction is not considered a seizure when a reasonable individual would feel free to terminate the encounter (Florida v Bostick (1991)). Without a property interest to anchor a homeless individual to a particular location, a police officer’s directive to move along from a public place does not trigger any Fourth Amendment interest, since complying with the order will end the interaction and not deprive the homeless individual of any property (Stephen E. Henderson, “Move On” Orders as Fourth Amendment Seizures, 2008 BYU L. Rev. 1, 18 (2008)).

Ie. Camping isn’t protected under the first amendment act as it isn’t expressive initself which that ruling if you read it makes clear. Essentially by itself it isn’t but it could theoretically be made expressive but that hasn’t be tried.

You can read it here. The defendants argued exactly that. It is the premise of the entire case.

We need not differ with the view of the Court of Appeals that overnight sleeping in connection with the demonstration is expressive conduct protected to some extent by the First Amendment.

They argue at length about the limits of this expression, and the distinction between facilitative and expressive acts. So it has definitely been tried, and has been thoroughly rebuked.

LOL you can’t be serious. They would just be subject to Panamanian court orders.

Yes, and since Panama has a long history of telling foreign nations to fuck off, data is much safer there than in Switzerland. At least as a non-Panamanian. You claim Switzerland is the "most privacy-respecting country on the planet," but I'd like to see the evidence. Since they comply with every court order, then I would argue one's data is no safer in Switzerland than most other European countries. Which is to say, completely unsafe from most Western governments.

Someone already tried that in 1984. When homeless activists camped out on Lafayette Square in front of the White House, the Supreme Court ruled in Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence that the act of sleeping itself was “facilitative,” rather than “expressive,” meaning that campgrounds aren’t protected forms of speech at all.

It’s not like the technology is a con. Brain implants have been iterated upon for decades. This is just the latest incarnation - after extensive animal testing. I don’t think we have a right to tell a quadriplegic they may not meaningfully improve their lives because we feel the risk is too high. They’re locked in a living prison.

I can't say I disagree. There is much to criticise.

I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about enjoying public spaces either. If you're allowed to camp on state land in your state it's because your state law permits it.

Proton is as private as it can possibly (and legally) be

That's clearly inaccurate, since they could be headquartered in Panama, and store their data there. That would make them immune to Swiss court orders. There are already hosts which provide server space in Panama for exactly this reason.

It's far more complicated than that for many of the homeless. A really high proportion have chronic mental health problems like schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder. These people cannot maintain even a basic apartment. Fires are common. As are faeces smeared on the walls, major structural damage, dead animals, bullet holes and use of firearms inside the premises. Throwing a mentally unwell person into a home to fend for themselves doesn't work. The mental health treatment has to come first. It can take months, if not years, to help them out of their hole.

Another significant portion of the homeless have chronic addiction. In addiction treatment, we say that "a locking door is a death sentence" because the LAST thing you want is to give a junky unsupervised privacy to shoot up as often as they like. Apartments often turn into local hubs for dealing and sex work. This attracts all kinds of unsavory characters and crime - especially violent crime. You don't want to know what a junky would be willing to do to get a fix. A major part of this problem is called "destigmatization." This is a great documentary on how it has so thoroughly failed in Vancouver, specifically.

Both groups require intensive support before being given housing. Not after and not at the same time.