Do you have adblock enabled?
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   ( divider line
    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  
•       •       •

1782 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 9:02 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-31 09:04:42 AM  
3 votes:
By the same logic, the government doesn't require us to own a house either.
2013-07-31 09:12:06 AM  
2 votes:

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

Now now, SCOTUS hasn't even touched this yet. It may get even stupider than the original appeals court decision.
2013-07-31 01:40:41 PM  
1 vote:
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 12:31:09 PM  
1 vote:

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're free to be a Christian. Everything else is pagan idolatry, and even then Catholics are merely tolerated.
2013-07-31 11:56:35 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:45:26 AM  
1 vote:
I seriously question the motives of anyone who wants to remove judicial oversight of law enforcement.
2013-07-31 10:41:27 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:09:43 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:08:11 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:06:52 AM  
1 vote:
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 09:54:21 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:53:31 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:50:35 AM  
1 vote:

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

Yes, they are.

Except for the part where they were right about shiat like this.
2013-07-31 09:46:31 AM  
1 vote:

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

Not what was said.

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

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

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

If you're too dense to see how this can be abused, I can only say that I'm glad that you don't know me...
2013-07-31 09:34:31 AM  
1 vote:

Deneb81: In what way?

In general your information is supposed to be protected by the telcom. 
Section 222
(a)(1) In general Every telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to, other telecommunication carriers, equipment manufacturers, and customers, including telecommunication carriers reselling telecommunications services provided by a telecommunications carrier.
(c)(1) :  Privacy requirements for telecommunications carriers
Except as required by law or with the approval of the customer, a telecommunications carrier that receives or obtains customer proprietary network information by virtue of its provision of a telecommunications service shall only use, disclose, or permit access to individually identifiable customer proprietary network information in its provision of (A) the telecommunications service from which such information is derived, or (B) services necessary to, or used in, the provision of such telecommunications service, including the publishing of directories.I am no legal scholar so there is a good possibility I am wrong.
I just find it hard to believe that this ruling doesn't run counter to a myriad of different laws.
2013-07-31 09:12:17 AM  
1 vote:
Why don't you show the government your displeasure? 13 43728.html

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

Enjoy your freedoms, Americans. Whatever small ones left you can find.
2013-07-31 09:11:06 AM  
1 vote:
This is even stupider than the Citizens United decision.
2013-07-31 09:09:00 AM  
1 vote:
wow.  That's some bullshiat.
2013-07-31 07:49:29 AM  
1 vote:
I'm not required to own a gun. Does that mean it isn't protected from searches or seizures?
2013-07-31 06:08:58 AM  
1 vote:
I'm not required to buy/own/drive a car, does that mean my vehicle is not protected?  (as if it is anyway).
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.