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  
•       •       •

1772 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 9:02 AM (51 weeks 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 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 48 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