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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report