If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   US Appeals court rules warrants not needed for phone records. Specifically, the decision holds that the fourth amendment doesn't apply to voluntary activities   (investigations.nbcnews.com) divider line 148
    More: Scary, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Fourth Amendment, Communications Act of 1934, telephone tapping, Appeals Court, location recording, polices  
•       •       •

1773 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 9:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



148 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-31 06:04:14 AM
FTFA:
"The Government does not require a member of the public to own or carry a phone," wrote U.S. Judge Edith Brown Clemen in an opinion joined by U.S. Judge Dennis Reavley. The opinion continued: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."

By that logic all data available to the device -conversations, media, files, camera, contacts, etc, would be vulnerable.
 
2013-07-31 06:08:58 AM
I'm not required to buy/own/drive a car, does that mean my vehicle is not protected?  (as if it is anyway).
 
2013-07-31 07:49:29 AM
I'm not required to own a gun. Does that mean it isn't protected from searches or seizures?
 
2013-07-31 09:04:42 AM
By the same logic, the government doesn't require us to own a house either.
 
2013-07-31 09:06:13 AM

Frederick: FTFA:
"The Government does not require a member of the public to own or carry a phone," wrote U.S. Judge Edith Brown Clemen in an opinion joined by U.S. Judge Dennis Reavley. The opinion continued: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."

By that logic all data available to the device -conversations, media, files, camera, contacts, etc, would be vulnerable.


Well, since you're volunteering your information them I'm certain that the judges wouldn't mind releasing all information that they've volunteered throughout their lives.
 
2013-07-31 09:07:45 AM

balki1867: By the same logic, the government doesn't require us to own a house either.


Or buy food, or walk down the street, or sit in your house completely still doing nothing...

But hey I guess I can just do my taxes 24/7 and keep my 4th Right.
 
2013-07-31 09:08:00 AM
I'm not required to own a unicycle.  Does that mean my unicycle is not protected against unlawful search and seizure?
 
2013-07-31 09:09:00 AM
wow.  That's some bullshiat.
 
2013-07-31 09:09:26 AM

Bontesla: Frederick: FTFA:
"The Government does not require a member of the public to own or carry a phone," wrote U.S. Judge Edith Brown Clemen in an opinion joined by U.S. Judge Dennis Reavley. The opinion continued: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."

By that logic all data available to the device -conversations, media, files, camera, contacts, etc, would be vulnerable.

Well, since you're volunteering your information them I'm certain that the judges wouldn't mind releasing all information that they've volunteered throughout their lives.


Fml autocorrect.

Correction: Since they're volunteering their information then I'm certain that the judges wouldn't mind releasing all information that they've been volunteering throughout their lives.
 
2013-07-31 09:09:48 AM
I'm sure that what the justices did to logic to arrive at that conclusion violates the UN Convention Against Torture.
 
2013-07-31 09:11:06 AM
This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.
 
2013-07-31 09:11:53 AM
I'm sure this is nothing to worry about while my guy/party is in charge.
 
2013-07-31 09:12:06 AM

give me doughnuts: This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.


Now now, SCOTUS hasn't even touched this yet. It may get even stupider than the original appeals court decision.
 
2013-07-31 09:12:17 AM
Why don't you show the government your displeasure?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/anti-occupy-law-passes-nea_b_ 13 43728.html

Oh, that's right. You can't do that, either.

Enjoy your freedoms, Americans. Whatever small ones left you can find.
 
2013-07-31 09:12:49 AM

GoldSpider: I'm sure this is nothing to worry about while my guy/party is in charge.


*kicks back puffs a cigar*

Ahhhh the perks of never having my guy/party in charge.
 
2013-07-31 09:13:28 AM
That's a very...interesting...reason for their decision. Since everything someone does in public is voluntary, does that mean the government can claim data related to those activities without requiring a warrant? What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?

/not sure what is covered under the 4th any more
//damn little now it appears
 
2013-07-31 09:14:01 AM
this sounds like a really really dumb ruling

So here is a question, do traditional land line switches store data? If so, are they considered any different when it comes to access to that data? Why?
 
2013-07-31 09:15:57 AM
A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

Yeah, pretty much ANY conversation I ever have had was "entirely voluntary", does that mean that having it in private is no longer private? As others have pointed out, this broad interpretation would let them bug pretty much anything, except maybe a jail or a courtroom, and I guess even a courtroom could be bugged, since you could always kill yourself to avoid going into court, therefore, it would be "voluntary", since you chose not to kill yourself. Same with jail, I guess. How can a conversation with your lawyer(Or your doctor on the outside) be confidential, since you "voluntarily" went to this meeting?
 
2013-07-31 09:18:08 AM

give me doughnuts: This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.


Yeah, this Supreme court is terrible.
 
2013-07-31 09:19:05 AM

Frederick: FTFA:
"The Government does not require a member of the public to own or carry a phone," wrote U.S. Judge Edith Brown Clemen in an opinion joined by U.S. Judge Dennis Reavley. The opinion continued: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."

By that logic all data available to the device -conversations, media, files, camera, contacts, etc, would be vulnerable.


I haven't read the full record yet, but that's NOT what that quoted section says.

You 'volunteer' your cell cite in the request to the tower to make a call. You are essentially providing your carrier with information on where you are and who you'd like to talk to as a necessary part of making the call. You're sending that information to them on purpose. The content - that's different. That's not volunteered to the cell provider - just as the contents of a letter isn't volunteered to the government just because the addresses on the front ARE.
 
2013-07-31 09:20:16 AM
Seems like its based on a presumption that the government owns the phone system and pays my bills.
My activity on that phone is between me and the service provider (who tends to promise secure communications).
...But yea, bureaucrats are free to riffle through my data because GOVERNMENT.

/I'm curious: Where do they think the 4th amendment actually applies?
 
2013-07-31 09:21:00 AM
nobody is required to own a home either, we could all just live in the streets and sleep wherever is convenient...
 
2013-07-31 09:21:57 AM
I would like to point out that Judge Clement was first appointed to the federal bench by George H. W. Bush, and nominated for the Fifth Circuit by George W. Bush.
 
2013-07-31 09:23:53 AM

Mikey1969: A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

Yeah, pretty much ANY conversation I ever have had was "entirely voluntary", does that mean that having it in private is no longer private? As others have pointed out, this broad interpretation would let them bug pretty much anything, except maybe a jail or a courtroom, and I guess even a courtroom could be bugged, since you could always kill yourself to avoid going into court, therefore, it would be "voluntary", since you chose not to kill yourself. Same with jail, I guess. How can a conversation with your lawyer(Or your doctor on the outside) be confidential, since you "voluntarily" went to this meeting?


"For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!
 
2013-07-31 09:24:32 AM
"Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."
-FTA

Doesn't this go against the Telecommunications Act of 1996?
 
2013-07-31 09:25:40 AM

Flargan: "Because a cell phone user makes a choice to get a phone, to select a particular service provider, and to make a call, and because he knows that call conveys cell site information ... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call."
-FTA

Doesn't this go against the Telecommunications Act of 1996?


In what way?
 
2013-07-31 09:26:47 AM

way south: /I'm curious: Where do they think the 4th amendment actually applies?


I think the right question is "Who do they think the 4th amendment applies to?"
 
2013-07-31 09:28:56 AM

Flargan: way south: /I'm curious: Where do they think the 4th amendment actually applies?

I think the right question is "Who do they think the 4th amendment applies to?"


Question: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?

Or why would you expect protection over the addresses on an envelope you mailed?
 
2013-07-31 09:34:31 AM

Deneb81: In what way?


In general your information is supposed to be protected by the telcom. 
Section 222
(a)(1) In general Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
(c)(1) :  Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.I am no legal scholar so there is a good possibility I am wrong.
I just find it hard to believe that this ruling doesn't run counter to a myriad of different laws.
 
2013-07-31 09:37:12 AM

Deneb81: Question: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?


So, any private residence with stored security camera footage should also be free to access without a warrant, and private records you have on offsite backup? Just because a third party is involved shouldn't mean the government should just be allowed to go through your stuff.
 
2013-07-31 09:41:32 AM

phenn: Why don't you show the government your displeasure?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/anti-occupy-law-passes-nea_b_ 13 43728.html

Oh, that's right. You can't do that, either.

Enjoy your freedoms, Americans. Whatever small ones left you can find.


That one might even be scarier... Taken together, you now have NO reasonable expectation to privacy, and can't peaceably assemble. How many core rights are left?
 
2013-07-31 09:42:26 AM

FarkedOver: give me doughnuts: This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.

Now now, SCOTUS hasn't even touched this yet. It may get even stupider than the original appeals court decision.



Very True. It never pays to underestimate the power of human stupidity.
 
2013-07-31 09:42:56 AM

Flargan: Deneb81: In what way?

In general your information is supposed to be protected by the telcom. 
Section 222
(a)(1) In general Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
(c)(1) :  Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.I am no legal scholar so there is a good possibility I am wrong.
I just find it hard to believe that this ruling doesn't run counter to a myriad of different laws.


1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.
 
2013-07-31 09:43:34 AM

Bendal: What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?


You aren't getting it... You HAVE no privacy "in your own home", since that situation is totally voluntary. Using this logic, they could follow you and listen anywhere, except when the government actively forces you to be there, and if you got up and walked in a room by yourself, I'm sure that could be seen as "voluntary", and anything you do wouldn't be private.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:28 AM

Headso: Deneb81: Question: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?

So, any private residence with stored security camera footage should also be free to access without a warrant, and private records you have on offsite backup? Just because a third party is involved shouldn't mean the government should just be allowed to go through your stuff.


No - footage is content. THAT you sent information and how much wouldn't be protected though.

For a provider to store your data you have to tell the provider:
A) accept the following data and
B) how much data to store

Not whats in it.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:32 AM

way south: Seems like its based on a presumption that the government owns the phone system and pays my bills.
My activity on that phone is between me and the service provider (who tends to promise secure communications).
...But yea, bureaucrats are free to riffle through my data because GOVERNMENT.

/I'm curious: Where do they think the 4th amendment actually applies?



In their house, office, or car, and on their phones.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:35 AM

Deneb81: Flargan: Deneb81: In what way?

In general your information is supposed to be protected by the telcom.
Section 222
(a)(1) In general Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
(c)(1) :  Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.I am no legal scholar so there is a good possibility I am wrong.
I just find it hard to believe that this ruling doesn't run counter to a myriad of different laws.

1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.


Plus the "Except as required by law" qualifier in (c)(1).
 
2013-07-31 09:45:36 AM

Mikey1969: Bendal: What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?

You aren't getting it... You HAVE no privacy "in your own home", since that situation is totally voluntary. Using this logic, they could follow you and listen anywhere, except when the government actively forces you to be there, and if you got up and walked in a room by yourself, I'm sure that could be seen as "voluntary", and anything you do wouldn't be private.


I see a future where the police no longer need a warrant to enter the home that you voluntarily live in.
 
2013-07-31 09:45:56 AM

Mikey1969: That one might even be scarier... Taken together, you now have NO reasonable expectation to privacy, and can't peaceably assemble. How many core rights are left?


I'm a cynical expat, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.

I honestly cannot think of one essential right that hasn't already been encroached or infringed. If someone else has something more positive to impart, let 'er rip. I'd love to be wrong on this one.
 
2013-07-31 09:46:31 AM

Deneb81: "For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!


EXACTLY what was said. You are supposedly "volunteering" this info, although most users don't KNOW about this, and the rest know that there is no way to turn it off. not only that, but just by having your phone turned on in your pocket, you are supposedly "volunteering" this info.

If you're too dense to see how this can be abused, I can only say that I'm glad that you don't know me...
 
2013-07-31 09:47:47 AM
But it's the conspiracy nuts that are crazy, yeah right!
 
2013-07-31 09:48:31 AM

neversubmit: But it's the conspiracy nuts that are crazy, yeah right!


Yes, they are.
 
2013-07-31 09:48:50 AM

Mikey1969: Bendal: What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?

You aren't getting it... You HAVE no privacy "in your own home", since that situation is totally voluntary. Using this logic, they could follow you and listen anywhere, except when the government actively forces you to be there, and if you got up and walked in a room by yourself, I'm sure that could be seen as "voluntary", and anything you do wouldn't be private.


No no no.

Info you have to volunteer to the phone company JUST SO THEY CAN CONNECT YOUR CALL is not content:

1) I am here.
2) I want to make a call
3) I want this other number to receive the call

The 4th protects content not THAT you made a call.
 
2013-07-31 09:49:36 AM

Flargan: Except as required by law


This part voids all the rest because: REDACTED FISA RULING
 
2013-07-31 09:50:05 AM

Deneb81: Mikey1969: A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

Yeah, pretty much ANY conversation I ever have had was "entirely voluntary", does that mean that having it in private is no longer private? As others have pointed out, this broad interpretation would let them bug pretty much anything, except maybe a jail or a courtroom, and I guess even a courtroom could be bugged, since you could always kill yourself to avoid going into court, therefore, it would be "voluntary", since you chose not to kill yourself. Same with jail, I guess. How can a conversation with your lawyer(Or your doctor on the outside) be confidential, since you "voluntarily" went to this meeting?

"For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!


When you mail a letter, you're volunteering the target address to the Post Office - a governmental entity owned by the federal government.
When you use a cell phone, you're volunteering certain information to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc, etc, etc.  Now maybe I missed a few articles, but I'm not aware that Uncle Sam bought out any of those providers.
 
2013-07-31 09:50:35 AM

FarkedOver: neversubmit: But it's the conspiracy nuts that are crazy, yeah right!

Yes, they are.


Except for the part where they were right about shiat like this.
 
2013-07-31 09:51:04 AM

Deneb81: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?


We aren't really going to get into a back and forth over Customer propietary information are we?

Lets skip to the part where someone says "That information doesn't represent you, come from you, is not important to you, and doesn't belong to you" and the other says "I disagree". :)

Deneb81: Or why would you expect protection over the addresses on an envelope you mailed?

That "addresses on an envelope" analogy seems a little bit out of place.
I understand why you used it but I wonder why you didn't go with emails instead.
 
2013-07-31 09:51:05 AM
"By participating in a modern society, you agree to waive your constitutional rights."

I'm sure that's what the Founding Fathers intended.
 
2013-07-31 09:51:27 AM

Deneb81: Headso: Deneb81: Question: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?

So, any private residence with stored security camera footage should also be free to access without a warrant, and private records you have on offsite backup? Just because a third party is involved shouldn't mean the government should just be allowed to go through your stuff.

No - footage is content. THAT you sent information and how much wouldn't be protected though.

For a provider to store your data you have to tell the provider:
A) accept the following data and
B) how much data to store

Not whats in it.


Where you are seems like content...
 
2013-07-31 09:51:27 AM

Karac: When you use a cell phone, you're volunteering certain information to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc, etc, etc.  Now maybe I missed a few articles, but I'm not aware that Uncle Sam bought out any of those providers.


Uncle Sam doesn't have to own it to ask it for records, you know.
 
2013-07-31 09:52:52 AM

phenn: FarkedOver: neversubmit: But it's the conspiracy nuts that are crazy, yeah right!

Yes, they are.

Except for the part where they were right about shiat like this.


Which still doesn't change the fact that they are crazy and should be marginalized for their bat-shiattery.
 
2013-07-31 09:52:54 AM

phenn: FarkedOver: neversubmit: But it's the conspiracy nuts that are crazy, yeah right!

Yes, they are.

Except for the part where they were right about shiat like this.


Anyone that stands up to power is by definition crazy, but that doesn't mean they are wrong.
 
2013-07-31 09:53:31 AM

qorkfiend: Karac: When you use a cell phone, you're volunteering certain information to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc, etc, etc.  Now maybe I missed a few articles, but I'm not aware that Uncle Sam bought out any of those providers.

Uncle Sam doesn't have to own it to ask it for records, you know.


No, but they should be required to get a warrant first.
 
2013-07-31 09:54:21 AM

FarkedOver: phenn: FarkedOver: neversubmit: But it's the conspiracy nuts that are crazy, yeah right!

Yes, they are.

Except for the part where they were right about shiat like this.

Which still doesn't change the fact that they are crazy and should be marginalized for their bat-shiattery.


When your own government has declared you the enemy, those batshiat crazies are your best friends.
 
2013-07-31 09:54:34 AM

Karac: When you mail a letter, you're volunteering the target address to the Post Office - a governmental entity owned by the federal government.
When you use a cell phone, you're volunteering certain information to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc, etc, etc. Now maybe I missed a few articles, but I'm not aware that Uncle Sam bought out any of those providers.



But you have no say in the matter if the cell-service provifers want to hand over their records to the government, even if those records contain all your calling data.
 
2013-07-31 09:54:40 AM

GoldSpider: "By participating in a modern society, you agree to waive your constitutional rights."

I'm sure that's what the Founding Fathers intended.


Scrap the Constitution. It is so....... outdated.
 
2013-07-31 09:55:10 AM

Karac: Deneb81: Mikey1969: A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

Yeah, pretty much ANY conversation I ever have had was "entirely voluntary", does that mean that having it in private is no longer private? As others have pointed out, this broad interpretation would let them bug pretty much anything, except maybe a jail or a courtroom, and I guess even a courtroom could be bugged, since you could always kill yourself to avoid going into court, therefore, it would be "voluntary", since you chose not to kill yourself. Same with jail, I guess. How can a conversation with your lawyer(Or your doctor on the outside) be confidential, since you "voluntarily" went to this meeting?

"For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!

When you mail a letter, you're volunteering the target address to the Post Office - a governmental entity owned by the federal government.
When you use a cell phone, you're volunteering certain information to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc, etc, etc.  Now maybe I missed a few articles, but I'm not aware that Uncle Sam bought out any of those providers.


But those private entities use infrastructure created, maintained, and regulated by the government.  It's no different than FedEx keeping records of who shipped items to whom; those records may be made available to the government but the packages themselves (the content) aren't opened unless they have a warrant.
 
2013-07-31 09:55:49 AM

Mikey1969: Deneb81: "For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!

EXACTLY what was said. You are supposedly "volunteering" this info, although most users don't KNOW about this, and the rest know that there is no way to turn it off. not only that, but just by having your phone turned on in your pocket, you are supposedly "volunteering" this info.

If you're too dense to see how this can be abused, I can only say that I'm glad that you don't know me...


If you don't understand that you're volunteering to the company where your phone is when it's on you're dense at this point. You're asking a company to constantly keep you in contact with the outside world - I'd think a typical person that doesn't view technology as magic understands that requires some sort of information on where you are. And understands making a call requires your phone to send a signal to the phone company.

And I never said it COULDN'T be abused. I just said that it is absolutely not kind of information that has EVER had fourth amendment protection.

If you want this type of thing protected you need to push for a privacy law or amendment - but it's not a stupid decision if you understand what the 4th actually has been considered to protect for the last 100 years or so.
 
2013-07-31 09:56:53 AM

give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: give me doughnuts: This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.

Now now, SCOTUS hasn't even touched this yet. It may get even stupider than the original appeals court decision.

Very True. It never pays to underestimate the power of human stupidity.


OTOH, let's not get too hasty. The 5th's decision conflicts with decisions in nearly identical cases from the 3rd and 4th CoA. I can see SCOTUS ruling that cell phone data are subject to the same rules as land line data. Time will tell.
 
2013-07-31 09:57:19 AM

Aarontology: I'm not required to own a gun. Does that mean it isn't protected from searches or seizures?


Yeah, no sh*t? WTF is up with this ruling? That's like saying, "Well, you chose to leave your house. Nobody forced you to do it. So the government can beat you in the head with a sap if it wants."
 
2013-07-31 09:58:50 AM

Stone Meadow: give me doughnuts: FarkedOver: give me doughnuts: This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.

Now now, SCOTUS hasn't even touched this yet. It may get even stupider than the original appeals court decision.

Very True. It never pays to underestimate the power of human stupidity.

OTOH, let's not get too hasty. The 5th's decision conflicts with decisions in nearly identical cases from the 3rd and 4th CoA. I can see SCOTUS ruling that cell phone data are subject to the same rules as land line data. Time will tell.



"It's not the despair. I can deal with the despair. It's the hope that's killing me."
 
2013-07-31 10:00:22 AM

phenn: Mikey1969: That one might even be scarier... Taken together, you now have NO reasonable expectation to privacy, and can't peaceably assemble. How many core rights are left?

I'm a cynical expat, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.

I honestly cannot think of one essential right that hasn't already been encroached or infringed. If someone else has something more positive to impart, let 'er rip. I'd love to be wrong on this one.


I didn't even mean encroached or infringed. Flat out trampled is really what I meant. Gun ownership and freedom of religion are the only two that are reasonably intact, and pretty soon it will just be freedom of religion, since IMHO, no matter how many times the religious types tell me that they are being "oppressed", most of the "restrictions" come in keeping those people from interfering with the freedoms of others...
 
2013-07-31 10:01:27 AM
 
2013-07-31 10:02:39 AM
I get the argument that every contract you sign has standard language allowing your carrier to do whatever they want with your metadata, meaning that your metadata is relatively more public than the actual contents of your message. I think that is a gross oversimplification, but if you've already told the carrier they effectively own records of your data you can't claim you expected them to stay personal.

Claiming "by taking a voluntary action you are forgoing privacy" is ridiculous though. It is the same logic that was used before Katz v. United States: that hey, if you're going to send encoded messages through the air you have to expect people will intercept and decode it.
 
2013-07-31 10:03:37 AM

Flargan: Deneb81: why do you think you have a 4th amendment claim over records a third party keeps in the regular course of business as a necessary part of providing a service you signed up for?

We aren't really going to get into a back and forth over Customer propietary information are we?

Lets skip to the part where someone says "That information doesn't represent you, come from you, is not important to you, and doesn't belong to you" and the other says "I disagree". :)

Deneb81: Or why would you expect protection over the addresses on an envelope you mailed?

That "addresses on an envelope" analogy seems a little bit out of place.
I understand why you used it but I wonder why you didn't go with emails instead.


The issue on proprietary information is that that has never been ruled to apply to the government for any industry.

The government has been able to look at banking records without a warrant for DECADES. Nearing a century. The bottom line is that the fourth amendment doesn't protect records ABOUT you that are held by someone else.
Privacy laws often do, but rarely apply to the government - like in banking, telecom, and some HIPPA information (gun shot wounds, injuries to children, etc).

That's what I'm trying to point out - its not that I LIKE whats going on. I just don't like that people act like its a violation of the 4th. Both because its frustrating to try and have a real conversation about the legal issues, and because it stops people from targeting the ACTUAL problems in the laws.

The fourth amendment just doesn't protect people in a way a lot of us think we should be protected. The only way to fix that is to change the law or the constitution. But railing against it as ALREADY unconstitutional is counter-productive and wrong.
 
2013-07-31 10:03:38 AM

Deneb81: Mikey1969: Bendal: What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?

You aren't getting it... You HAVE no privacy "in your own home", since that situation is totally voluntary. Using this logic, they could follow you and listen anywhere, except when the government actively forces you to be there, and if you got up and walked in a room by yourself, I'm sure that could be seen as "voluntary", and anything you do wouldn't be private.

No no no.

Info you have to volunteer to the phone company JUST SO THEY CAN CONNECT YOUR CALL is not content:

1) I am here.
2) I want to make a call
3) I want this other number to receive the call

The 4th protects content not THAT you made a call.


You don't "volunteer" that information at all. Just by walking around all day, your phone is trading off location data, smart phone or dumb, it is constantly telling the towers where it is, there is no "voluntary" about it. It happens as long as the phone is on.

The point that you don't seem to be getting is the "voluntary" part. If that is the main criteria they use, then nothing you do is safe, because pretty much EVERYthing you do is "voluntary", and this WILL be twisted to expand past simply gathering your phone location, a little bit at first, and then more and more and more.
 
2013-07-31 10:06:52 AM
The laws should be changed so metadata can't just be given away or collected without a warrant. Voluntary also means having agency in how your data is handled. Yeah people post where they are on Foursquare and Facebook all day, but they have agency in that sharing. Having a sweeping, open clause in any contract that says, "We can do whatever we want with this, including sell it - OH and the government can track it too," is grade AAA horseh*t. If it's legal, well, it shouldn't be.
 
2013-07-31 10:08:11 AM
When Deneb81 and others mentioned the argument that (paraphrasing here), "This information is not protected and you already gave consent" it reminded me of older stories related to wiretapping.


A little digging through some saved Favorites and I found:


"Keeping in mind that implied consent is not constructive consent but 'consent in fact,' consent might be implied in spite of deficient notice, but only in a rare case where the court can conclude with assurance from surrounding circumstances that the party knowingly agreed to the surveillance. We emphasize that consent should not casually be inferred, particularly in a case of deficient notice. The surrounding circumstances must convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception in spite of the lack of formal notice or deficient formal notice."

-United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966, 981 (1st Cir. 1995)


My memories of the Wiretapping discussions in the late 90s always come back to me on topics like the one we are discussing.


//Oh the 90s how I miss you..
 
2013-07-31 10:09:04 AM

CPT Ethanolic: I'm not required to buy/own/drive a car, does that mean my vehicle is not protected?  (as if it is anyway).


Everyone repeating this argument fails completely at understanding the ruling in question.

Don't be stupid; it doesn't help.
 
2013-07-31 10:09:43 AM

Mikey1969: didn't even mean encroached or infringed. Flat out trampled is really what I meant. Gun ownership and freedom of religion are the only two that are reasonably intact, and pretty soon it will just be freedom of religion, since IMHO, no matter how many times the religious types tell me that they are being "oppressed", most of the "restrictions" come in keeping those people from interfering with the freedoms of others...


Life, due process of law, property, privacy, speech, assembly, representation... all pretty much gone, in my eyes. Again, take that with a grain of salt. Bitter might be too harsh a word to describe me. Disappointed is probably more accurate.
 
2013-07-31 10:09:43 AM

Mikey1969: Deneb81: Mikey1969: Bendal: What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?

You aren't getting it... You HAVE no privacy "in your own home", since that situation is totally voluntary. Using this logic, they could follow you and listen anywhere, except when the government actively forces you to be there, and if you got up and walked in a room by yourself, I'm sure that could be seen as "voluntary", and anything you do wouldn't be private.

No no no.

Info you have to volunteer to the phone company JUST SO THEY CAN CONNECT YOUR CALL is not content:

1) I am here.
2) I want to make a call
3) I want this other number to receive the call

The 4th protects content not THAT you made a call.

You don't "volunteer" that information at all. Just by walking around all day, your phone is trading off location data, smart phone or dumb, it is constantly telling the towers where it is, there is no "voluntary" about it. It happens as long as the phone is on.

The point that you don't seem to be getting is the "voluntary" part. If that is the main criteria they use, then nothing you do is safe, because pretty much EVERYthing you do is "voluntary", and this WILL be twisted to expand past simply gathering your phone location, a little bit at first, and then more and more and more.


Slippery slope arguments aren't really convincing.

And you're missing the main point. The information you're talking about - a third party business' records ABOUT you aren't protected by the fourth amendment and never have been. YOU have no CONSTITUTIONAL claim to privacy over data created, maintained, and held by a third party.

I agree that's maybe not the best in the modern world of connected technology. But what people need to understand is that it requires a change in law or constitution - because that kind of information has NEVER been protected by the 4th.
 
2013-07-31 10:11:33 AM

Smackledorfer: CPT Ethanolic: I'm not required to buy/own/drive a car, does that mean my vehicle is not protected?  (as if it is anyway).

Everyone repeating this argument fails completely at understanding the ruling in question.

Don't be stupid; it doesn't help.


It's called, "Making fun." The ruling sounds like the slut-shaming defense: well, you shouldn't have worn those tight, sexy jeans that night. You had it coming!
 
2013-07-31 10:13:38 AM

Flargan: When Deneb81 and others mentioned the argument that (paraphrasing here), "This information is not protected and you already gave consent" it reminded me of older stories related to wiretapping.


A little digging through some saved Favorites and I found:


"Keeping in mind that implied consent is not constructive consent but 'consent in fact,' consent might be implied in spite of deficient notice, but only in a rare case where the court can conclude with assurance from surrounding circumstances that the party knowingly agreed to the surveillance. We emphasize that consent should not casually be inferred, particularly in a case of deficient notice. The surrounding circumstances must convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception in spite of the lack of formal notice or deficient formal notice."

-United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966, 981 (1st Cir. 1995)


My memories of the Wiretapping discussions in the late 90s always come back to me on topics like the one we are discussing.


//Oh the 90s how I miss you..


Here's the thing, ostensibly what's going on isn't actual wire-tapping as it's not call content. Phone records - billing data and the like - isn't covered by those decisions. The police can constitutionally get a record of your calls without a warrant. They can't constitutionally get a RECORDING of your calls without a warrant though.
 
2013-07-31 10:15:06 AM

Deneb81: That's what I'm trying to point out - its not that I LIKE whats going on. I just don't like that people act like its a violation of the 4th. Both because its frustrating to try and have a real conversation about the legal issues, and because it stops people from targeting the ACTUAL problems in the laws.


Yea we could (and probably should) just moves this past the 4th amendment and into the realm of existing laws.
 
2013-07-31 10:18:06 AM

hasty ambush: qorkfiend: I would like to point out that Judge Clement was first appointed to the federal bench by George H. W. Bush, and nominated for the Fifth Circuit by George W. Bush.

If you are going to play that game:

Democratic congressional reps who apparently followed the lead of Nancy Pelosi in voting against the Amash Amendment to defund the NSA program to collect all of your phone data despite the fact that those same Representatives had voted against that very same program a couple years ago. We pointed out that it was clearly Pelosi's lead that made the others follow -- and it was likely that Pelosi was responding to great pressure from the White House. Now ForeignPolicy.com confirms that it was Pelosi's actions that "saved" the NSA surveillance program,

/Kettle Pot," it is no bad when our guys do It "etc. etc. etc.


Just pointing out that Small-Government, Pro-Liberty Republicans are the ones giving these programs the legal justifications required to continue.
 
2013-07-31 10:18:41 AM

Flargan: Deneb81: That's what I'm trying to point out - its not that I LIKE whats going on. I just don't like that people act like its a violation of the 4th. Both because its frustrating to try and have a real conversation about the legal issues, and because it stops people from targeting the ACTUAL problems in the laws.

Yea we could (and probably should) just moves this past the 4th amendment and into the realm of existing laws.


That's the thing - existing laws or even new ones only help so much. Any new federal law that doesn't violate the content restrictions of the 4th (like the secret authorization of the NSA program assuming public info that its metadata only is correct) would just 'overwrite' any law based protections.

It really would take a true privacy amendment to get people where they want to be.
 
2013-07-31 10:23:05 AM

Deneb81: The information you're talking about - a third party business' records ABOUT you aren't protected by the fourth amendment and never have been. YOU have no CONSTITUTIONAL claim to privacy over data created, maintained, and held by a third party.

I agree that's maybe not the best in the modern world of connected technology. But what people need to understand is that it requires a change in law or constitution - because that kind of information has NEVER been protected by the 4th.


I don't think Mikey understands this and I don't think he wants to understand it.  He's gone full Chicken Little.

The people who are upset about this remind me of the Tea Party right after Obama was elected - they are only now realizing what has been going on for years, they're completely misunderstanding the situation mostly due to willful ignorance, and they're so wrapped up in their outrage that they can't make a logical argument for how to fix the problem.

The issue is that what is going on is legal.  If you want to change that, you have to change the laws of the land.  If you want to do that, then we need to change our representatives - but we have to be SMART about who we elect to represent us.  It can't just be reactionary idiots, we actually need to represent people who can find true balance between the interests of the freedom of the people coupled with the requirements of government to protect the people.  That's not easy, which is why stupid people just gnash their teeth and pee their pants in terror of the Other.
 
2013-07-31 10:26:46 AM

phenn: Mikey1969: didn't even mean encroached or infringed. Flat out trampled is really what I meant. Gun ownership and freedom of religion are the only two that are reasonably intact, and pretty soon it will just be freedom of religion, since IMHO, no matter how many times the religious types tell me that they are being "oppressed", most of the "restrictions" come in keeping those people from interfering with the freedoms of others...

Life, due process of law, property, privacy, speech, assembly, representation... all pretty much gone, in my eyes. Again, take that with a grain of salt. Bitter might be too harsh a word to describe me. Disappointed is probably more accurate.


So, in comparison, just how "free" are things in Costa Rica?
 
2013-07-31 10:27:37 AM
noone is required to be on the supreme court either, so anally raping supreme court justices with their own gavels is clearly a constitutionally protected activity. what the fark, "justices"????
 
2013-07-31 10:32:50 AM
images.wikia.com
The Amendment: But if we change the Constitution...
Kid: Then we can make all sorts of crazy laws!
The Amendment: Now you're catching on!
 
2013-07-31 10:33:31 AM

Deneb81: It really would take a true privacy amendment to get people where they want to be.


Agreed,

 
Others have argued in the recent NSA debacle that the power of the Executive during a time of war grants authority to override a great deal of existing laws. I think that's a pretty broad way of looking at Executive powers but I suppose it's worth discussing.

 
I mention this because even a new "true privacy amendment" could be diminished by an expansion of powers and there seems to be push for that in the past few years.
 
2013-07-31 10:37:16 AM

Stone Meadow: So, in comparison, just how "free" are things in Costa Rica?


Fair enough question. I consider them much better. At very least, far slower to go all 'surveillance state' on their citizens. They have a constitution and, by and large, they obey it.

There is no perfect place, mind you. I just consider CR a vast improvement. That's me and YMMV.
 
2013-07-31 10:39:38 AM

Flargan: Deneb81: It really would take a true privacy amendment to get people where they want to be.

Agreed,

 
Others have argued in the recent NSA debacle that the power of the Executive during a time of war grants authority to override a great deal of existing laws. I think that's a pretty broad way of looking at Executive powers but I suppose it's worth discussing.

 
I mention this because even a new "true privacy amendment" could be diminished by an expansion of powers and there seems to be push for that in the past few years.


Part of that push is based on ambiguity as to the power of the president in times of war. 'Commander in Cheif' is never defined not are its powers.

But it doesn't allow for an abrogation of constitutional protections. Though courts are often too generous to the executive until after the fact - see Lincoln in the civil war, Japanese internment, the court taking a log time to rule on some of the Bush 2 cases or pushing things back to the legislature.
 
2013-07-31 10:41:27 AM

Flargan: Others have argued in the recent NSA debacle that the power of the Executive during a time of war grants authority to override a great deal of existing laws. I think that's a pretty broad way of looking at Executive powers but I suppose it's worth discussing.


Keeping the NSA in Perspective

"This was an attack on the civil rights of Americans, but it was not an unprecedented attack. During World War II, the United States imposed postal censorship on military personnel, and the FBI intercepted selected letters sent in the United States and from overseas. The government created a system of voluntary media censorship that was less than voluntary in many ways. Most famously, the United States abrogated the civil rights of citizens of Japanese origin by seizing property and transporting them to other locations. Members of pro-German organizations were harassed and arrested even prior to Pearl Harbor. Decades earlier, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, effectively allowing the arrest and isolation of citizens without due process.

There are two major differences between the war on terror and the aforementioned wars. First, there was a declaration of war in World War II. Second, there is a provision in the Constitution that allows the president to suspend habeas corpus in the event of a rebellion. The declaration of war imbues the president with certain powers as commander in chief -- as does rebellion. Neither of these conditions was put in place to justify NSA programs such as PRISM.

Moreover, partly because of the constitutional basis of the actions and partly because of the nature of the conflicts, World War II and the Civil War had a clear end, a point at which civil rights had to be restored or a process had to be created for their restoration. No such terminal point exists for the war on terror. As was witnessed at the Boston Marathon -- and in many instances over the past several centuries -- the ease with which improvised explosive devices can be assembled makes it possible for simple terrorist acts to be carried out cheaply and effectively. Some plots might be detectable by intercepting all communications, but obviously the Boston Marathon attack could not be predicted.

The problem with the war on terror is that it has no criteria of success that is potentially obtainable. It defines no level of terrorism that is tolerable but has as its goal the elimination of all terrorism, not just from Islamic sources but from all sources. That is simply never going to happen and therefore, PRISM and its attendant programs will never end. These intrusions, unlike all prior ones, have set a condition for success that is unattainable, and therefore the suspension of civil rights is permanent. Without a constitutional amendment, formal declaration of war or declaration of a state of emergency, the executive branch has overridden fundamental limits on its powers and protections for citizens."
 
2013-07-31 10:44:28 AM
I wonder what kind of dirt they dug up on the Justices when this program started? Somebody owns them.
 
2013-07-31 10:45:26 AM
I seriously question the motives of anyone who wants to remove judicial oversight of law enforcement.
 
2013-07-31 10:48:15 AM

Flargan: Deneb81: It really would take a true privacy amendment to get people where they want to be.

Agreed,

 
Others have argued in the recent NSA debacle that the power of the Executive during a time of war grants authority to override a great deal of existing laws. I think that's a pretty broad way of looking at Executive powers but I suppose it's worth discussing.

 
I mention this because even a new "true privacy amendment" could be diminished by an expansion of powers and there seems to be push for that in the past few years.


It's also worth noting -
The original pre-FISA NSA program under Bush 2 was something that violated the accepted 4th content protection. The FISA courts are an attempt to address that with some form of warrant - though the constitutionality of that is suspect.

This new program is pretty clearly crafted to pull the maximum amount of data allowed under the long-standing typical interpretation of the 4th.

So it kind of depends on which NSA program you're talking about.
 
2013-07-31 10:50:30 AM

Apik0r0s: I wonder what kind of dirt they dug up on the Justices when this program started? Somebody owns them.


Please read the thread and try to understand what the 4th amendment actually protects.

You're not helping.
 
2013-07-31 10:52:16 AM
Not reading to see if someone else said it:

I choose to say what I say.  It's entirely voluntary.  Does that mean that my words are unprotected?
 
2013-07-31 10:52:24 AM
Our story so far:

A panel (not the entire court en banc) of the 5th Circuit decided 2-1 prompting the alarm: The 5th Circuit Ate My Dingo, Which Ate My Homework.
 
2013-07-31 10:54:34 AM

Explodo: Not reading to see if someone else said it:

I choose to say what I say.  It's entirely voluntary.  Does that mean that my words are unprotected?


Better be careful what you say in public or around other people is all...
 
2013-07-31 10:57:35 AM

hasty ambush: Flargan:

The problem with the war on terror is that it has no criteria of success that is potentially obtainable.

Well that critique would place the "war on terror" in the same category as the "war on crime", "war on drugs", and "war on poverty". I have read such a critique in quite a few articles.
 
2013-07-31 11:01:03 AM

GoldSpider: Explodo: Not reading to see if someone else said it:

I choose to say what I say.  It's entirely voluntary.  Does that mean that my words are unprotected?

Better be careful what you say in public or around other people is all...


You joke, but really?

Statements made in public are BY DEFINITION not protected by the fourth. Or fifth.

Just the first - and that only prevents the government from harming you just for saying them. That doesn't stop you from being prosecuted for something else and them being used against you in a court of law.

Do you actually know what's in the constitution?
 
2013-07-31 11:08:12 AM

phenn: Stone Meadow: So, in comparison, just how "free" are things in Costa Rica?

Fair enough question. I consider them much better. At very least, far slower to go all 'surveillance state' on their citizens. They have a constitution and, by and large, they obey it.

There is no perfect place, mind you. I just consider CR a vast improvement. That's me and YMMV.


Fair answer. My wife and I have been to CR several times with an eye towards emigrating, and have toured much of the country, but without knowing people whom one can talk to about the "unwritten" rules and realities it's difficult to form an informed opinion. I recently discovered a grad school friend and roomie has live in SJ for more than 10 years, so will be visiting him sometime in the next few years.

If you're willing to discuss your experiences my email is my username (one word, all smalls) at rocketmail. TIA.
 
2013-07-31 11:08:52 AM
Chains you can believe in.
 
2013-07-31 11:12:17 AM

phenn: Why don't you show the government your displeasure?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/anti-occupy-law-passes-nea_b_ 13 43728.html

Oh, that's right. You can't do that, either.


i57.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-31 11:15:41 AM

AdmirableSnackbar: Karac: Deneb81: Mikey1969: A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

Yeah, pretty much ANY conversation I ever have had was "entirely voluntary", does that mean that having it in private is no longer private? As others have pointed out, this broad interpretation would let them bug pretty much anything, except maybe a jail or a courtroom, and I guess even a courtroom could be bugged, since you could always kill yourself to avoid going into court, therefore, it would be "voluntary", since you chose not to kill yourself. Same with jail, I guess. How can a conversation with your lawyer(Or your doctor on the outside) be confidential, since you "voluntarily" went to this meeting?

"For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!

When you mail a letter, you're volunteering the target address to the Post Office - a governmental entity owned by the federal government.
When you use a cell phone, you're volunteering certain information to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc, etc, etc.  Now maybe I missed a few articles, but I'm not aware that Uncle Sam bought out any of those providers.

But those private entities use infrastructure created, maintained, and regulated by the government.  It's no different than FedEx keeping records of who shipped items to whom; those records may be made available to the government but the packages themselves (the content) aren't opened unless they have a warrant.


Actually your packages going through a 3rd party shipper, like UPS, does not require a war rent to search. Only 1st class mail through USPS must have a war rent to search.

Why do you think people mail drugs through the USPS and not fed ex or UPS?
 
2013-07-31 11:20:46 AM

GoldSpider: "By participating in a modern society, you agree to waive your constitutional rights."

I'm sure that's what the Founding Fathers intended.


As I have seen many a Fark progressives post:

The Constitution was written by a bunch of old, slave owning white men, it is outdated etc. etc. etc.

Also in the past progressives and so called "civil libertarians" were quick to argue that :

"The US Constitution Is Not A Sacred Document" The Daily Kos

"The Constitution is like my old blue dress ... it doesn't fit anymore." -- Rep. Ellen Tauscher, (democrat, California)

"To hell with the Constitution." -- Former California Assemblyman Democrat Mike Roos, February 1989

"A strict reading of the constitution would be a mistake" Al Gore 3/14/00

But a they seem to have found out when they argued that the General Welfare Clause means that the Federal government can do whatever the heck it wants (along with the 10th Amendment no longer being meaningful) instead of being restricted to the powers enumerated under Article 1 Section 8 that it is not that far a stretch for government to use all the General Clauses in an unrestricted manner-without limits. So much for the Broad powers, living document point of view.

Yes, the Amendment process can be slow but when it comes to changing the powers granted to the government or taken from the people it should be a slow deliberative process. IT is far better than the creative reinterpretation or just outright ignoring the Constitution to allow government to avoid that tiresome amendment process of obtaining the consent of the governed an just assume more powers at its convenience.

eastvalleynewsnet.com
 
2013-07-31 11:21:38 AM

MrSplifferton: AdmirableSnackbar: Karac: Deneb81: Mikey1969: A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

Yeah, pretty much ANY conversation I ever have had was "entirely voluntary", does that mean that having it in private is no longer private? As others have pointed out, this broad interpretation would let them bug pretty much anything, except maybe a jail or a courtroom, and I guess even a courtroom could be bugged, since you could always kill yourself to avoid going into court, therefore, it would be "voluntary", since you chose not to kill yourself. Same with jail, I guess. How can a conversation with your lawyer(Or your doctor on the outside) be confidential, since you "voluntarily" went to this meeting?

"For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!

When you mail a letter, you're volunteering the target address to the Post Office - a governmental entity owned by the federal government.
When you use a cell phone, you're volunteering certain information to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc, etc, etc.  Now maybe I missed a few articles, but I'm not aware that Uncle Sam bought out any of those providers.

But those private entities use infrastructure created, maintained, and regulated by the government.  It's no different than FedEx keeping records of who shipped items to whom; those records may be made available to the government but the packages themselves (the content) aren't opened unless they have a warrant.

Actually your packages going through a 3rd party shipper, like UPS, does not require a war rent to search. Only 1st class mail through USPS must have a war rent to search.

Why do you think people mail drugs through the USPS and not fed ex or UPS?


This is a thing. The USPS is a federal agency and must abide by the constitutional protections in the 4th.

UPS, FedEx, etc, are private companies and can root through your shiat if they feel like it.
 
2013-07-31 11:26:19 AM

Stone Meadow: phenn: Stone Meadow: So, in comparison, just how "free" are things in Costa Rica?

Fair enough question. I consider them much better. At very least, far slower to go all 'surveillance state' on their citizens. They have a constitution and, by and large, they obey it.

There is no perfect place, mind you. I just consider CR a vast improvement. That's me and YMMV.

Fair answer. My wife and I have been to CR several times with an eye towards emigrating, and have toured much of the country, but without knowing people whom one can talk to about the "unwritten" rules and realities it's difficult to form an informed opinion. I recently discovered a grad school friend and roomie has live in SJ for more than 10 years, so will be visiting him sometime in the next few years.

If you're willing to discuss your experiences my email is my username (one word, all smalls) at rocketmail. TIA.


I'd be happy to drop you a line.
 
2013-07-31 11:29:02 AM

Deneb81: Flargan: When Deneb81 and others mentioned the argument that (paraphrasing here), "This information is not protected and you already gave consent" it reminded me of older stories related to wiretapping.


A little digging through some saved Favorites and I found:


"Keeping in mind that implied consent is not constructive consent but 'consent in fact,' consent might be implied in spite of deficient notice, but only in a rare case where the court can conclude with assurance from surrounding circumstances that the party knowingly agreed to the surveillance. We emphasize that consent should not casually be inferred, particularly in a case of deficient notice. The surrounding circumstances must convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception in spite of the lack of formal notice or deficient formal notice."

-United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966, 981 (1st Cir. 1995)


My memories of the Wiretapping discussions in the late 90s always come back to me on topics like the one we are discussing.


//Oh the 90s how I miss you..

Here's the thing, ostensibly what's going on isn't actual wire-tapping as it's not call content. Phone records - billing data and the like - isn't covered by those decisions. The police can constitutionally get a record of your calls without a warrant. They can't constitutionally get a RECORDING of your calls without a warrant though.


And what you fail to realize is that meta data can give you a more accurate depiction of the individual than just content. As long as you have a cell phone on you they can track your location, know who you called, how many times you called them, etc...

but it's cool the 4th amendment says nothing about meta-data.

/damn, government knows I skipped work to watch a movie a few weeks back.
 
2013-07-31 11:37:02 AM
Can we get privacy, voting and uterusses reclassified as fire-arms? Problem solved.
 
2013-07-31 11:37:44 AM
Having "Free will" is "voluntary activity" by definition. So anything you do that you weren't explicitly told to do under direction of the U.S. Government or law enforcement, is subject to search?

Are my farts subject to search and seizure?

/Scared
 
2013-07-31 11:39:01 AM
we need to THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT OF OFFICE!  Wtf is wrong with us?
 
2013-07-31 11:44:16 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: we need to THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT OF OFFICE!  Wtf is wrong with us?


It is those other congress-critters that are the problem. Yours (or mine) are perfectly fine.
/that is what is wrong
//mine are not fine, but impossible to do anything about : (
 
2013-07-31 11:48:01 AM

Deneb81: MrSplifferton: AdmirableSnackbar: Karac: Deneb81: Mikey1969: A key basis for the ruling: The use of cell phones is "entirely voluntarily" and therefore individuals who use them have forfeited the right to constitutional protection for records showing where they have been used, the court held.

Yeah, pretty much ANY conversation I ever have had was "entirely voluntary", does that mean that having it in private is no longer private? As others have pointed out, this broad interpretation would let them bug pretty much anything, except maybe a jail or a courtroom, and I guess even a courtroom could be bugged, since you could always kill yourself to avoid going into court, therefore, it would be "voluntary", since you chose not to kill yourself. Same with jail, I guess. How can a conversation with your lawyer(Or your doctor on the outside) be confidential, since you "voluntarily" went to this meeting?

"For records showing WHERE they have been used"

Not what was said.

You provide your location to your provider without restriction when your phone sends a request for a line. That's NOT the same as content, and NOT the same thing as face to face speech.

It's like sending a letter with a return address then gettin upset the government knows who you sent it to, where you put your address as, and where you mailed it from. No shiat - you put that on the envelope in order to mail it and put it in the mailbox! You 'volunteered' that information!

When you mail a letter, you're volunteering the target address to the Post Office - a governmental entity owned by the federal government.
When you use a cell phone, you're volunteering certain information to Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc, etc, etc.  Now maybe I missed a few articles, but I'm not aware that Uncle Sam bought out any of those providers.

But those private entities use infrastructure created, maintained, and regulated by the government.  It's no different than FedEx keeping records of who shipped items to whom; those records may be made available to the government but the packages themselves (the content) aren't opened unless they have a warrant.

Actually your packages going through a 3rd party shipper, like UPS, does not require a war rent to search. Only 1st class mail through USPS must have a war rent to search.

Why do you think people mail drugs through the USPS and not fed ex or UPS?

This is a thing. The USPS is a federal agency and must abide by the constitutional protections in the 4th.

UPS, FedEx, etc, are private companies and can root through your shiat if they feel like it.


Yes, but UPS and Fed Ex are the ones opening your package not the feds.

Out of curiosity, if corporations are people, shouldn't the government have to issue a warrant to access their meta data anyways?
 
2013-07-31 11:56:35 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: we need to THROW THESE PEOPLE OUT OF OFFICE!  Wtf is wrong with us?


It's not that there is something wrong with "us". It's that Congress has perverted the Constitution to be able to choose their own voters. Both major parties conspired to make it this way first to protect incumbents and then gain artificial majorities. Get rid of gerrymandering and this country is solidly Democratic.
 
2013-07-31 11:59:06 AM
I can envision a day when I get interrogated about where I was, and why my cell phone was off during time X, but I was literally in bed where I get "No service" on the phone.

Since my phone is a business tool and a tax deductible business expense it's not voluntary.
 
2013-07-31 12:01:22 PM

MrSplifferton: Deneb81: Flargan: When Deneb81 and others mentioned the argument that (paraphrasing here), "This information is not protected and you already gave consent" it reminded me of older stories related to wiretapping.


A little digging through some saved Favorites and I found:


"Keeping in mind that implied consent is not constructive consent but 'consent in fact,' consent might be implied in spite of deficient notice, but only in a rare case where the court can conclude with assurance from surrounding circumstances that the party knowingly agreed to the surveillance. We emphasize that consent should not casually be inferred, particularly in a case of deficient notice. The surrounding circumstances must convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception in spite of the lack of formal notice or deficient formal notice."

-United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966, 981 (1st Cir. 1995)


My memories of the Wiretapping discussions in the late 90s always come back to me on topics like the one we are discussing.


//Oh the 90s how I miss you..

Here's the thing, ostensibly what's going on isn't actual wire-tapping as it's not call content. Phone records - billing data and the like - isn't covered by those decisions. The police can constitutionally get a record of your calls without a warrant. They can't constitutionally get a RECORDING of your calls without a warrant though.

And what you fail to realize is that meta data can give you a more accurate depiction of the individual than just content. As long as you have a cell phone on you they can track your location, know who you called, how many times you called them, etc...

but it's cool the 4th amendment says nothing about meta-data.

/damn, government knows I skipped work to watch a movie a few weeks back.


I didn't fail to realize anything. Welcome to the advent of land lines. The government has always been able to get that information without a warrant. Or your bank records. Watch any given cold case show and you'll note that telephone records are often obtained and used to get a warrant to get a wiretap. Note - they got the unprotected records from the phone company WITHOUT a warrant and used it to get protected content with a warrant. This goes back decades. It's been ok'd by the Supreme Court for decades.

Just because you'd PREFER they not have access doesn't mean it's PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Which is what the court has to rule on.
 
2013-07-31 12:02:40 PM

wildcardjack: I can envision a day when I get interrogated about where I was, and why my cell phone was off during time X, but I was literally in bed where I get "No service" on the phone.

Since my phone is a business tool and a tax deductible business expense it's not voluntary.


Unless its a government issued phone, it would be voluntary, I guess.

You could always find a job that doesn't require a phone...
 
2013-07-31 12:08:26 PM

Deneb81: MrSplifferton: Deneb81: Flargan: When Deneb81 and others mentioned the argument that (paraphrasing here), "This information is not protected and you already gave consent" it reminded me of older stories related to wiretapping.


A little digging through some saved Favorites and I found:


"Keeping in mind that implied consent is not constructive consent but 'consent in fact,' consent might be implied in spite of deficient notice, but only in a rare case where the court can conclude with assurance from surrounding circumstances that the party knowingly agreed to the surveillance. We emphasize that consent should not casually be inferred, particularly in a case of deficient notice. The surrounding circumstances must convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception in spite of the lack of formal notice or deficient formal notice."

-United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966, 981 (1st Cir. 1995)


My memories of the Wiretapping discussions in the late 90s always come back to me on topics like the one we are discussing.


//Oh the 90s how I miss you..

Here's the thing, ostensibly what's going on isn't actual wire-tapping as it's not call content. Phone records - billing data and the like - isn't covered by those decisions. The police can constitutionally get a record of your calls without a warrant. They can't constitutionally get a RECORDING of your calls without a warrant though.

And what you fail to realize is that meta data can give you a more accurate depiction of the individual than just content. As long as you have a cell phone on you they can track your location, know who you called, how many times you called them, etc...

but it's cool the 4th amendment says nothing about meta-data.

/damn, government knows I skipped work to watch a movie a few weeks back.

I didn't fail to realize anything. Welcome to the advent of land lines. The government has always been able to get that information without a warrant. Or your bank records. Watch any given cold case show and you'll note that telephone records are often obtained and used to get a warrant to get a wiretap. Note - they got the unprotected records from the phone company WITHOUT a warrant and used it to get protected content with a warrant. This goes back decades. It's been ok'd by the Supreme Court for decades.

Just because you'd PREFER they not have access doesn't mean it's PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Which is what the court has to rule on.


You have far more patience than I. Keep fighting the good fight.
 
2013-07-31 12:13:15 PM

Deneb81: MrSplifferton: Deneb81: Flargan: When Deneb81 and others mentioned the argument that (paraphrasing here), "This information is not protected and you already gave consent" it reminded me of older stories related to wiretapping.


A little digging through some saved Favorites and I found:


"Keeping in mind that implied consent is not constructive consent but 'consent in fact,' consent might be implied in spite of deficient notice, but only in a rare case where the court can conclude with assurance from surrounding circumstances that the party knowingly agreed to the surveillance. We emphasize that consent should not casually be inferred, particularly in a case of deficient notice. The surrounding circumstances must convincingly show that the party knew about and consented to the interception in spite of the lack of formal notice or deficient formal notice."

-United States v. Lanoue, 71 F.3d 966, 981 (1st Cir. 1995)


My memories of the Wiretapping discussions in the late 90s always come back to me on topics like the one we are discussing.


//Oh the 90s how I miss you..

Here's the thing, ostensibly what's going on isn't actual wire-tapping as it's not call content. Phone records - billing data and the like - isn't covered by those decisions. The police can constitutionally get a record of your calls without a warrant. They can't constitutionally get a RECORDING of your calls without a warrant though.

And what you fail to realize is that meta data can give you a more accurate depiction of the individual than just content. As long as you have a cell phone on you they can track your location, know who you called, how many times you called them, etc...

but it's cool the 4th amendment says nothing about meta-data.

/damn, government knows I skipped work to watch a movie a few weeks back.

I didn't fail to realize anything. Welcome to the advent of land lines. The government has always been able to get that information without a warrant. Or your bank records. Watch any given cold case show and you'll note that telephone records are often obtained and used to get a warrant to get a wiretap. Note - they got the unprotected records from the phone company WITHOUT a warrant and used it to get protected content with a warrant. This goes back decades. It's been ok'd by the Supreme Court for decades.

Just because you'd PREFER they not have access doesn't mean it's PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Which is what the court has to rule on.


So tracking through installed GPS device is illegal without a warrant. But tracking through location taken from cell phone meta data is OK.

Got it.
 
2013-07-31 12:13:17 PM

Witty_Retort: Can we get privacy, voting and uterusses reclassified as

fire-arms gay marriage? Problem solved.


FTFY because it works both ways.
 
2013-07-31 12:17:43 PM

hasty ambush: Witty_Retort: Can we get privacy, voting and uterusses reclassified as fire-arms gay marriage? Problem solved.


FTFY because it works both ways.


You may have a point. We may be getting to a tipping point were 2A is no longer sacred ground.
Thanks for the correction.
/if every other right has to have reams of paperwork that follows you through life, why not....?
//gun-owner and user
 
2013-07-31 12:28:18 PM

Deneb81: Mikey1969: Bendal: What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?

You aren't getting it... You HAVE no privacy "in your own home", since that situation is totally voluntary. Using this logic, they could follow you and listen anywhere, except when the government actively forces you to be there, and if you got up and walked in a room by yourself, I'm sure that could be seen as "voluntary", and anything you do wouldn't be private.

No no no.

Info <b>you have to volunteer</b> to the phone company JUST SO THEY CAN CONNECT YOUR CALL is not content:

1) I am here.
2) I want to make a call
3) I want this other number to receive the call

The 4th protects content not THAT you made a call.


Found your problem. The thing is, the way the ruling is written, it is irrespective of content. The court was not asked to rule whether or not the information was part of "content," though I would contend that since the information is required to make a phone call, regardless of content, that it should be considered a part of the phonecall itself, and subsequently "content"... anyways, I digress... the ruling wasn't about content... the court held that because you "volunteer" that information by way of having a phone that you aren't legally "required" to have, that it is not subject to fourth amendment protections. The content part of the argument you make is... well, foreseeable, and probably how the DOJ sees things, but this ruling went a  million miles beyond that in specifying this entire "voluntary" carveout to the fourth amendment, even where "voluintary" can be read as "unwitting" or "required by a combination of terms of service and federal law."
 
2013-07-31 12:30:55 PM

CPT Ethanolic: I'm not required to buy/own/drive a car, does that mean my vehicle is not protected?  (as if it is anyway).


While I think this is a dubious analogy....

While the contents of your car are protected, such that the cops need to get a warrant before looking for the dead hookers in your trunk, the exterior of the car is not. Historically, this has only been a problem if you were stupid enough to leave an arm dangling out of the trunk so it didn't close properly. However, if the cops were to set up cameras at each intersection of public streets to photograph every car license plate when the vehicle passes through, then as far as IAmNotALawyer understand, that would not violate any Constitutional search limits from case law; and the photos showing your car having driven past the spot on Hooker Drive that now has a six foot wide puddle of blood on the sidewalk would possibly give grounds for a warrant to search your car.

Of course, there's a difference between the legal question of what is or is not constitutional, and the political question of whether allowing such public monitoring is sound policy or amounts to an unconscionable infringement on individual liberties.
 
2013-07-31 12:31:09 PM

Mikey1969: Gun ownership and freedom of religion are the only two that are reasonably intact, and pretty soon it will just be freedom of religion...


Let's be clear on this...you're free to be a Christian. Everything else is pagan idolatry, and even then Catholics are merely tolerated.
 
2013-07-31 12:43:10 PM
If these records do not entail a violation of privacy then they would be subject to a FOIA request.
 
2013-07-31 12:50:09 PM

Deneb81: Part of that push is based on ambiguity as to the power of the president in times of war. 'Commander in Cheif' is never defined not are its powers.



What ambiguity?

US Constitution; Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power....
.
.

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

.
.
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
.
.
.

The Constitution is explicitly clear that Congress gets to make the rules.
Commander in Chief just means that the President is at the top of the chain of command. He is still subject to the limitations of the rules that Congress makes, just like all the generals below him are.


John Yoo is a hack.
 
2013-07-31 01:22:09 PM

Cubicle Jockey: The Constitution is explicitly clear that Congress gets to make the rules.
Commander in Chief just means that the President is at the top of the chain of command. He is still subject to the limitations of the rules that Congress makes, just like all the generals below him are.


There are grey areas between the rules for the Commander in Cheif and the rules set by Congress.
Typically the courts are used to resolve them.

"Senator LEAHY: Do you agree that Congress can make rules that may impinge upon the President's command functions?

Judge ROBERTS. Certainly, Senator. The point that Justice Jackson is making there is that the Constitution vests pertinent authority in these areas in both branches. The President is the Commander in Chief, and that meant something to the Founders. On the other hand, as you just quoted, Congress has the authority to issue regulations governing the Armed Forces, another express provision in the Constitution. Those two can conflict if by making regulations for the Armed Forces, Congress does something that interferes with, in the President's view, his command authority, and in some cases those disputes will be resolved in Court, as they were in the Youngstown case."

-Roberts Confirmation hearing in 2005


//Youngstown was brought up alot during the torture memo days.
 
2013-07-31 01:40:41 PM
so can we twist this into something else.

Being born is NOT a voluntary decision, so by having the government require ultrasounds before getting an abortion is then a violation of the pre-born's 4th amendment right.
 
2013-07-31 01:57:23 PM

Chagrin: If these records do not entail a violation of privacy then they would be subject to a FOIA request.



FOIA doesn't apply to businesses.
 
2013-07-31 02:19:29 PM

firefly212: Deneb81: Mikey1969: Bendal: What if you use your phone only in the privacy of your home? Is the data still not covered under the 4th Amendment?

You aren't getting it... You HAVE no privacy "in your own home", since that situation is totally voluntary. Using this logic, they could follow you and listen anywhere, except when the government actively forces you to be there, and if you got up and walked in a room by yourself, I'm sure that could be seen as "voluntary", and anything you do wouldn't be private.

No no no.

Info <b>you have to volunteer</b> to the phone company JUST SO THEY CAN CONNECT YOUR CALL is not content:

1) I am here.
2) I want to make a call
3) I want this other number to receive the call

The 4th protects content not THAT you made a call.

Found your problem. The thing is, the way the ruling is written, it is irrespective of content. The court was not asked to rule whether or not the information was part of "content," though I would contend that since the information is required to make a phone call, regardless of content, that it should be considered a part of the phonecall itself, and subsequently "content"... anyways, I digress... the ruling wasn't about content... the court held that because you "volunteer" that information by way of having a phone that you aren't legally "required" to have, that it is not subject to fourth amendment protections. The content part of the argument you make is... well, foreseeable, and probably how the DOJ sees things, but this ruling went a  million miles beyond that in specifying this entire "voluntary" carveout to the fourth amendment, even where "voluintary" can be read as "unwitting" or "required by a combination of terms of service and federal law."


I'm not sure you're reading the ruling correctly. As far as I can see, the court's ruling on the "voluntary" aspect didn't come out of thin air, but rather in response to the assertion (by the ACLU I believe) that location information was not voluntarily given by callers.

In other words, it seems that this ruling (or that part of the ruling anyway) was was nothing more than a somewhat obvious answer to a simple question - it doesn't look like it actually changed anything with regards to the Fourth Amendment in general.
 
2013-07-31 02:42:46 PM
Deneb81:

1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.


This thread is dead, and no one will see this, and I don't even have a position, except that we're living in a police state now.

I just wanted to say you strike me as a particularly repellent human being.
 
2013-07-31 02:51:49 PM

give me doughnuts: Chagrin: If these records do not entail a violation of privacy then they would be subject to a FOIA request.

FOIA doesn't apply to businesses.


I was implying that the data could be requested from the government once it reaches their hands.
 
2013-07-31 03:07:58 PM

Hyjamon: so can we twist this into something else.

Being born is NOT a voluntary decision, so by having the government require ultrasounds before getting an abortion is then a violation of the pre-born's 4th amendment right.


The fetus has no rights...the mother did voluntarily get pregnant though.
 
2013-07-31 04:01:08 PM
... he voluntarily conveys his cell site data each time he makes a call.

Actually, no call is necessary. Just having your phone turned on registers its location and your identity with the nearest cell sites.
 
2013-07-31 04:16:40 PM

Madbassist1: Deneb81:

1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.

This thread is dead, and no one will see this, and I don't even have a position, except that we're living in a police state now.

I just wanted to say you strike me as a particularly repellent human being.


Awesome. Thanks for your opinion. Personally, you strike me as particularly uninformed, overly emotional, and reactionary.

Does your opinion change if you read the part where I said I agree that the government shouldn't have free access but that that just isn't the state of constitutional law and hasn't EVER been the state of con law?

Wishing it so doesn't make it happen. Decrying it as unconstitutional is about as accurate as a right wing politician making a stupid comment then claiming their free speech is being violated when the press calls them stupid. Not at all - that's not what the amendment protects.

You can hate me all you want but describing the law and saying its fine are different.
 
2013-07-31 04:26:50 PM

Deneb81: Madbassist1: Deneb81:

1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.

This thread is dead, and no one will see this, and I don't even have a position, except that we're living in a police state now.

I just wanted to say you strike me as a particularly repellent human being.

Awesome. Thanks for your opinion. Personally, you strike me as particularly uninformed, overly emotional, and reactionary.

Does your opinion change if you read the part where I said I agree that the government shouldn't have free access but that that just isn't the state of constitutional law and hasn't EVER been the state of con law?

Wishing it so doesn't make it happen. Decrying it as unconstitutional is about as accurate as a right wing politician making a stupid comment then claiming their free speech is being violated when the press calls them stupid. Not at all - that's not what the amendment protects.

You can hate me all you want but describing the law and saying its fine are different.


I didn't say I hated you. I'm not 12. I said I find you particularly repellent. Although I disagree with you about the 4th, its a subjective thing, I suppose. I would consider the carrier info my effects. Also, what about the 1996 act that you said "was superseded" or some such BS. The 1996 law is very clear. I dont recall your exact wording, but meh. Like I said, I dont have an argument. I just find your willingness to roll over disgusting, and your ability to suck your opressor's dick while you do it abhorrent.

Please carry on.
 
2013-07-31 04:30:52 PM
STFUGTFODIAFURSOSTOOPID SNODENS GF IS STRPPR11!! HES COWARD SO THIS NO MATTER!!!11!!!
 
2013-07-31 04:36:25 PM

Madbassist1: Deneb81: Madbassist1: Deneb81:

1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.

This thread is dead, and no one will see this, and I don't even have a position, except that we're living in a police state now.

I just wanted to say you strike me as a particularly repellent human being.

Awesome. Thanks for your opinion. Personally, you strike me as particularly uninformed, overly emotional, and reactionary.

Does your opinion change if you read the part where I said I agree that the government shouldn't have free access but that that just isn't the state of constitutional law and hasn't EVER been the state of con law?

Wishing it so doesn't make it happen. Decrying it as unconstitutional is about as accurate as a right wing politician making a stupid comment then claiming their free speech is being violated when the press calls them stupid. Not at all - that's not what the amendment protects.

You can hate me all you want but describing the law and saying its fine are different.

I didn't say I hated you. I'm not 12. I said I find you particularly repellent. Although I disagree with you about the 4th, its a subjective thing, I suppose. I would consider the carrier info my effects. Also, what about the 1996 act that you said "was superseded" or some such BS. The 1996 law is very clear. I dont recall your exact wording, but meh. Like I said, I dont have an argument. I just find your willingness to roll over disgusting, and your ability to suck your opressor's dick while you do it abhorrent.

Please carry on.


A) Caselaw dating back nearly a century is definitely not 'subjective'. The data collected by the carrier about your use of their services is their data - which you do not have any constitutionally based right to privacy over. I'm sorry - that's the bottom line standard used for the last few decades. You also have no protection over records the bank keeps of money they're holding for you, records the bowling alley keeps abou your scores, or that Google keeps about your porn searches. That's just the way the law is. Right or wrong that's a FACT.

B) a law can be clear as day. But if a NEWER law is passed and conflicts with the old one, the new one is 'the law'. That's not a hard concept to understand. New laws can change old laws. That's the whole point of passing new laws. I'm not sure if you think a 'repeal' is necessary first to change old law - it's not. What is BS about that?

I'm sorry you don't understand or like the way the jurisprudence of the US works.

But a law being bad doesn't make it unconstitutional. It just makes it bad.
 
2013-07-31 04:41:07 PM

Madbassist1: Deneb81: Madbassist1: Deneb81:

1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.

This thread is dead, and no one will see this, and I don't even have a position, except that we're living in a police state now.

I just wanted to say you strike me as a particularly repellent human being.

Awesome. Thanks for your opinion. Personally, you strike me as particularly uninformed, overly emotional, and reactionary.

Does your opinion change if you read the part where I said I agree that the government shouldn't have free access but that that just isn't the state of constitutional law and hasn't EVER been the state of con law?

Wishing it so doesn't make it happen. Decrying it as unconstitutional is about as accurate as a right wing politician making a stupid comment then claiming their free speech is being violated when the press calls them stupid. Not at all - that's not what the amendment protects.

You can hate me all you want but describing the law and saying its fine are different.

I didn't say I hated you. I'm not 12. I said I find you particularly repellent. Although I disagree with you about the 4th, its a subjective thing, I suppose. I would consider the carrier info my effects. Also, what about the 1996 act that you said "was superseded" or some such BS. The 1996 law is very clear. I dont recall your exact wording, but meh. Like I said, I dont have an argument. I just find your willingness to roll over disgusting, and your ability to suck your opressor's dick while you do it abhorrent.

Please carry on.


And what rolling over? Shouting that its unconstitutional when its not is objectively wrong AND ineffective. I'm pointing out people need to discuss an AMENDMENT to fix this - that's not rolling over. It's understanding the ACTUAL PROBLEM and suggesting an ACTUAL SOLUTION. Instead of being a left wing version of the 'local area man' being an 'ardent defender of what he believes the constitution to be.'
 
2013-07-31 04:53:25 PM
Someone In this thread sounds like they have an interest in the domestic spy program.

Go fark yourself. Better yet....soak your Mao suit in gasoline and light a match.
 
2013-07-31 04:58:36 PM
funny thing... news really hasnt been all over this. I'd expect atleast some am radio shows to be talking about it.
#RIP 4th
 
2013-07-31 05:01:45 PM
Just to play devil's advocate, wouldn't phone location records be more equivalent to the police tailing your car to see where you are and who you are seeing? There's no warrant required by police to do that kind of surveillance.
 
2013-07-31 05:12:46 PM

Giltric: Someone In this thread sounds like they have an interest in the domestic spy program.

Go fark yourself. Better yet....soak your Mao suit in gasoline and light a match.


If you're referring to me my 'interest' is having written a long paper (40+ pages plus cites/footnotes) on the Bush 2 wiretaps, how the court was addressing them and whether they were constitutional (no) and what the FISA court was (sketchy).

So am I a Maoist, or a fascist, or... Someone that actually understands the laws involved and not just knee jerk reactions?

I mean really - you can disagree that something that something is MORAL while still understanding its LEGAL.

See - the opposite of pot laws, recent restrictions on abortion clinics, gerrymandering in the south, and wearing shirts made entirely of red white and blue flag-like colors and shapes.
 
2013-07-31 05:43:30 PM

Deneb81: Giltric: Someone In this thread sounds like they have an interest in the domestic spy program.

Go fark yourself. Better yet....soak your Mao suit in gasoline and light a match.

If you're referring to me my 'interest' is having written a long paper (40+ pages plus cites/footnotes) on the Bush 2 wiretaps, how the court was addressing them and whether they were constitutional (no) and what the FISA court was (sketchy).

So am I a Maoist, or a fascist, or... Someone that actually understands the laws involved and not just knee jerk reactions?

I mean really - you can disagree that something that something is MORAL while still understanding its LEGAL.

See - the opposite of pot laws, recent restrictions on abortion clinics, gerrymandering in the south, and wearing shirts made entirely of red white and blue flag-like colors and shapes.


Are you employed by the  government in any capacity?
 
2013-07-31 07:21:37 PM

CPT Ethanolic: I'm not required to buy/own/drive a car, does that mean my vehicle is not protected?  (as if it is anyway).


If your vehicle is on a public street, and thus observable by the public, you voluntarily exposed it and it is not protected under the 4th. However, this would not justify a physical invasion of your car, such as placing a tracking device. The former is long standing Supreme Court precedent, the latter is more recent.

With regards to the 5th Circuit decision, they had no choice but to hold that such location information was unprotected under the 4th because there is Supreme Court precedent that is directly on point holding that such information is not private (not saying I agree with the prior precedent, just saying that 5th Circuit followed precedent). The Supreme Court has previously held that a warrant is not required for the government to obtain a peraon's phone call log because the person voluntarily exposes this information to the phone provider, as evidenced by the customer receiving a bill listing all incoming and outgoing calls to the phone number. Personally, I think the Supreme Court's holding in this case was garbage, but until it is overturned by the Supreme Court, it is the law of the land. The 4th amendment protects a "reasonable expectation of privacy" as determined by what society at large considers reasonably exposed or private. A reasonable person using a cell phone is aware that cell phones operate through locally placed cell phone towers and that the provider keeps track of such information as a necessary part of operations. Thus, a cell user voluntarily chooses to expose his general location to the cell company every time he places a cellular phone call. Once the person volunteers this information to the cell company, it ceases to be private information and the government may obtain it without a warrant. However, I believe that the government can't compel the cellular provider to disclose the information. If memory serves me right, the issue of whether the information can be compelled is currently being litigated by providers like google and facebook. The general premise under the prior cases related to information voluntarily turned over to the government upon request/demand. An analogous way of looking at this is if you mailed a letter to somebody, you wouldn't have a privacy interest in the postal stamp indicating which post office originally received and dispatched the letter. Nor would you be able to assert the 4th against the intended recipient of the letter if they voluntarily handed the letter over to the police (unless some other privilege applied).

Personally, I despise all of the prior rulings I referred to above. I don't believe original intent or original meaning support them. I also despise the current 4th amendment reasonable person standard because my privacy interests are defined by the actions of others outside of my control. Your 4th amendment right to privacy is currently being being defined and diminished by an ever increasing number of idiots that expose too much information to the public by posting every last thought, occurrence, and fart on facebook, twitter, 4square, pintrest, etc.

Sorry I can't remember case names and cites at the moment. All cases should be easily found through a quick google search, which the government may request.
 
2013-07-31 07:29:53 PM

Giltric: Deneb81: Giltric: Someone In this thread sounds like they have an interest in the domestic spy program.

Go fark yourself. Better yet....soak your Mao suit in gasoline and light a match.

If you're referring to me my 'interest' is having written a long paper (40+ pages plus cites/footnotes) on the Bush 2 wiretaps, how the court was addressing them and whether they were constitutional (no) and what the FISA court was (sketchy).

So am I a Maoist, or a fascist, or... Someone that actually understands the laws involved and not just knee jerk reactions?

I mean really - you can disagree that something that something is MORAL while still understanding its LEGAL.

See - the opposite of pot laws, recent restrictions on abortion clinics, gerrymandering in the south, and wearing shirts made entirely of red white and blue flag-like colors and shapes.

Are you employed by the  government in any capacity?


I am not. Not directly at least.

I work in electronic discovery - legal speak for managing electronic information that is or might be used in litigation, investigations, or regulatory oversight.
I'm employed by one of the contractors that works with the FDIC to manage documents left by banks that failed - which is what I work with. (Not high up, not been there long, did temp-style legal work for 5 years before that)

I'm not even CLOSE to employed by any three letter agency if that's what you're wondering. I just got into this stuff when writing a paper for a class in school.
 
2013-07-31 07:42:33 PM

Madbassist1: Deneb81: Madbassist1: Deneb81:

1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.

This thread is dead, and no one will see this, and I don't even have a position, except that we're living in a police state now.

I just wanted to say you strike me as a particularly repellent human being.

Awesome. Thanks for your opinion. Personally, you strike me as particularly uninformed, overly emotional, and reactionary.

Does your opinion change if you read the part where I said I agree that the government shouldn't have free access but that that just isn't the state of constitutional law and hasn't EVER been the state of con law?

Wishing it so doesn't make it happen. Decrying it as unconstitutional is about as accurate as a right wing politician making a stupid comment then claiming their free speech is being violated when the press calls them stupid. Not at all - that's not what the amendment protects.

You can hate me all you want but describing the law and saying its fine are different.

I didn't say I hated you. I'm not 12. I said I find you particularly repellent. Although I disagree with you about the 4th, its a subjective thing, I suppose. I would consider the carrier info my effects. Also, what about the 1996 act that you said "was superseded" or some such BS. The 1996 law is very clear. I dont recall your exact wording, but meh. Like I said, I dont have an argument. I just find your willingness to roll over disgusting, and your ability to suck your opressor's dick while you do it abhorrent.

Please carry on.


You are wrong on this. The 4th amendment isn't a "subjective thing" where the Supreme Court has determined the contours and bounds of the amendment. What you are decrying is Supreme Court jurisprudence on a Constitutional question. The laws passed by Congress cannot, as a matter of law, overturn Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality of a law. Congress can use their other powers to prohibit the acquisition of such information by federal entities and strongly encourage, and potentially require, states to do the same.

The Supreme Court determines, and has determined, the outermost bounds of permissible government activity. They have not restricted government action within these bounds. Your belief that the carrier info is your "effects" is irrelevant within the scope of the question. The 4th amendment is not based on a specific individual's perception of their privacy interest. It is framed by a societal lens.

You can dislike the practical application all you want. You are free to posit whatever legal theory you want, but I'll tell you right now, whatever theory you come up with will be a loser under current Supreme Court jurisprudence. But its unfettered ignorance to tell someone that you find them particularly abhorrent because they tell you it's raining outside when it is.
 
2013-07-31 08:24:20 PM

Deneb81: Giltric: Deneb81: Giltric: Someone In this thread sounds like they have an interest in the domestic spy program.

Go fark yourself. Better yet....soak your Mao suit in gasoline and light a match.

If you're referring to me my 'interest' is having written a long paper (40+ pages plus cites/footnotes) on the Bush 2 wiretaps, how the court was addressing them and whether they were constitutional (no) and what the FISA court was (sketchy).

So am I a Maoist, or a fascist, or... Someone that actually understands the laws involved and not just knee jerk reactions?

I mean really - you can disagree that something that something is MORAL while still understanding its LEGAL.

See - the opposite of pot laws, recent restrictions on abortion clinics, gerrymandering in the south, and wearing shirts made entirely of red white and blue flag-like colors and shapes.

Are you employed by the  government in any capacity?

I am not. Not directly at least.

I work in electronic discovery - legal speak for managing electronic information that is or might be used in litigation, investigations, or regulatory oversight.
I'm employed by one of the contractors that works with the FDIC to manage documents left by banks that failed - which is what I work with. (Not high up, not been there long, did temp-style legal work for 5 years before that)

I'm not even CLOSE to employed by any three letter agency if that's what you're wondering. I just got into this stuff when writing a paper for a class in school.


What were your intentions in regards to writing the paper.

Did you do it to prove or disprove its legality/illegality?
 
2013-07-31 09:12:55 PM

Giltric: Deneb81: Giltric: Deneb81: Giltric: Someone In this thread sounds like they have an interest in the domestic spy program.

Go fark yourself. Better yet....soak your Mao suit in gasoline and light a match.

If you're referring to me my 'interest' is having written a long paper (40+ pages plus cites/footnotes) on the Bush 2 wiretaps, how the court was addressing them and whether they were constitutional (no) and what the FISA court was (sketchy).

So am I a Maoist, or a fascist, or... Someone that actually understands the laws involved and not just knee jerk reactions?

I mean really - you can disagree that something that something is MORAL while still understanding its LEGAL.

See - the opposite of pot laws, recent restrictions on abortion clinics, gerrymandering in the south, and wearing shirts made entirely of red white and blue flag-like colors and shapes.

Are you employed by the  government in any capacity?

I am not. Not directly at least.

I work in electronic discovery - legal speak for managing electronic information that is or might be used in litigation, investigations, or regulatory oversight.
I'm employed by one of the contractors that works with the FDIC to manage documents left by banks that failed - which is what I work with. (Not high up, not been there long, did temp-style legal work for 5 years before that)

I'm not even CLOSE to employed by any three letter agency if that's what you're wondering. I just got into this stuff when writing a paper for a class in school.

What were your intentions in regards to writing the paper.

Did you do it to prove or disprove its legality/illegality?


To get a grade in the class so I could graduate.

It was mostly 'state of the law and how what we know of this program interacts' along with a recounting of the federal case about it. My end result was that I thought it wouldn't pass constitutional scrutiny but it didn't matter because with the FISA courts being implemented and executive privilege claims it likely wouldn't get all that close a review.

So I was for sure half right.
 
2013-07-31 09:38:04 PM

Deneb81: Giltric: Deneb81: Giltric: Deneb81: Giltric: Someone In this thread sounds like they have an interest in the domestic spy program.

Go fark yourself. Better yet....soak your Mao suit in gasoline and light a match.

If you're referring to me my 'interest' is having written a long paper (40+ pages plus cites/footnotes) on the Bush 2 wiretaps, how the court was addressing them and whether they were constitutional (no) and what the FISA court was (sketchy).

So am I a Maoist, or a fascist, or... Someone that actually understands the laws involved and not just knee jerk reactions?

I mean really - you can disagree that something that something is MORAL while still understanding its LEGAL.

See - the opposite of pot laws, recent restrictions on abortion clinics, gerrymandering in the south, and wearing shirts made entirely of red white and blue flag-like colors and shapes.

Are you employed by the  government in any capacity?

I am not. Not directly at least.

I work in electronic discovery - legal speak for managing electronic information that is or might be used in litigation, investigations, or regulatory oversight.
I'm employed by one of the contractors that works with the FDIC to manage documents left by banks that failed - which is what I work with. (Not high up, not been there long, did temp-style legal work for 5 years before that)

I'm not even CLOSE to employed by any three letter agency if that's what you're wondering. I just got into this stuff when writing a paper for a class in school.

What were your intentions in regards to writing the paper.

Did you do it to prove or disprove its legality/illegality?

To get a grade in the class so I could graduate.

It was mostly 'state of the law and how what we know of this program interacts' along with a recounting of the federal case about it. My end result was that I thought it wouldn't pass constitutional scrutiny but it didn't matter because with the FISA courts being implemented and executive privilege claims it likely wouldn't get all that close a review.

So I was for sure half right.


I'm fairly sure that it isn't worth your time engaging this guy further. He clearly has little to no understanding of the law, nor is he familiar with law school and its requirement that you learn the law (even those laws you don't like), and occasionally write extensively researched papers on it.

Like I previously said, if you say it's raining outside when it is, they will ask you if you said it because you wanted to ruin their picnic.
 
2013-08-01 08:41:21 AM

Deneb81: B) a law can be clear as day. But if a NEWER law is passed and conflicts with the old one, the new one is 'the law'. That's not a hard concept to understand. New laws can change old laws. That's the whole point of passing new laws. I'm not sure if you think a 'repeal' is necessary first to change old law - it's not. What is BS about that?


New laws don't trump amendments.  Only new amendments trump old amendments.
 
2013-08-01 08:55:52 AM

RIDETHEWALRUS: Madbassist1: Deneb81: Madbassist1: Deneb81:

1) that stuff is usually applicable to non-government use - generally defined elsewhere in the law. You'd need to find that section to see what's actually 'protected' and from whom.
2) the law authorizing this is newer and more specific so it would be considered to overwrite that older law where they conflicted.

This thread is dead, and no one will see this, and I don't even have a position, except that we're living in a police state now.

I just wanted to say you strike me as a particularly repellent human being.

Awesome. Thanks for your opinion. Personally, you strike me as particularly uninformed, overly emotional, and reactionary.

Does your opinion change if you read the part where I said I agree that the government shouldn't have free access but that that just isn't the state of constitutional law and hasn't EVER been the state of con law?

Wishing it so doesn't make it happen. Decrying it as unconstitutional is about as accurate as a right wing politician making a stupid comment then claiming their free speech is being violated when the press calls them stupid. Not at all - that's not what the amendment protects.

You can hate me all you want but describing the law and saying its fine are different.

I didn't say I hated you. I'm not 12. I said I find you particularly repellent. Although I disagree with you about the 4th, its a subjective thing, I suppose. I would consider the carrier info my effects. Also, what about the 1996 act that you said "was superseded" or some such BS. The 1996 law is very clear. I dont recall your exact wording, but meh. Like I said, I dont have an argument. I just find your willingness to roll over disgusting, and your ability to suck your opressor's dick while you do it abhorrent.

Please carry on.

You are wrong on this. The 4th amendment isn't a "subjective thing" where the Supreme Court has determined the contours and bounds of the amendment. What you are decrying is Supreme Cour ...


You're right, I was ignorant. Not of the law, necessarily, but of Deneb81's position, and you're right as well. It's the juisprudence I'm hating on. I didnt get too far into the thread before I posted what I did. He did a little goalpost moving a smidgen of backpedalling, but what he said is correct, and I apologize for my comment on him fellating his opressor type thing suchas.

/A farker admits he's wrong?
// no such thing!
 
2013-08-01 01:05:59 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Deneb81: B) a law can be clear as day. But if a NEWER law is passed and conflicts with the old one, the new one is 'the law'. That's not a hard concept to understand. New laws can change old laws. That's the whole point of passing new laws. I'm not sure if you think a 'repeal' is necessary first to change old law - it's not. What is BS about that?

New laws don't trump amendments.  Only new amendments trump old amendments.


Good thing the amendment issue has already been covered huh?
 
2013-08-01 04:18:26 PM

Smackledorfer: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Deneb81: B) a law can be clear as day. But if a NEWER law is passed and conflicts with the old one, the new one is 'the law'. That's not a hard concept to understand. New laws can change old laws. That's the whole point of passing new laws. I'm not sure if you think a 'repeal' is necessary first to change old law - it's not. What is BS about that?

New laws don't trump amendments.  Only new amendments trump old amendments.

Good thing the amendment issue has already been covered huh?


Not really.  Pretending that just because your personal documents exist in multiple locations, they are not actually your documents, would be like pretending it's ok for me to spy on you because I place a mirror in between my line of sight.  It's beyond idiotic.
 
2013-08-01 08:40:15 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Smackledorfer: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Deneb81: B) a law can be clear as day. But if a NEWER law is passed and conflicts with the old one, the new one is 'the law'. That's not a hard concept to understand. New laws can change old laws. That's the whole point of passing new laws. I'm not sure if you think a 'repeal' is necessary first to change old law - it's not. What is BS about that?

New laws don't trump amendments.  Only new amendments trump old amendments.

Good thing the amendment issue has already been covered huh?

Not really.  Pretending that just because your personal documents exist in multiple locations, they are not actually your documents, would be like pretending it's ok for me to spy on you because I place a mirror in between my line of sight.  It's beyond idiotic.


You have idea what you are talking about do you?
 
Displayed 148 of 148 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report