IMO the D did this for a reason.
31:50
briefly bring up I think yesterday the court had talked about privacy rights uh with the IG databases and I certainly want make sure that we we are preserving that argument uh we included it in the briefing we do believe that Americans have privacy interest in the genetics they share with other people and that other people then Place Within These databases so that is not something that we intended to abandon in any way.
JMO
RSBM - IMO there are a couple of problems with ATs argument here.
[However I first note and fully accept there is a constitutional argument to be made here - and one day the highest appeal courts and maybe Congress will weigh in on it.]
1. The idea that BK has standing via someone else who uploaded DNA, merely due to being a close relation is a non starter for me. That is too wide a class to be owed any duty or enforce some right. MOO
2. The idea that "breaching site TOS" = "unconstitutional search" is also fairly wild. Maybe the FBI breached the site TOS so could in theory have some civil liability to the site owners. But that is not a duty owed to other site users, let alone any enforceable constitutional right.
I do think it would be sensible to legislate in these areas, but even then, i fail to see how such a search would ever be unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court ultimately says so.
For me the main fallacy is where is the unreasonable search exactly? A key point of the protection is to stop the police harassing innocent citizens e.g by entering private property without cause to trawl for the killer. But here there is no slippery slope. The only person who was ever going to have their "privacy" violated was the killer.
MOO