For one thing, lots of transgression were against people who didn’t “tell others” - that include be willful disclosure - but people who sent mail or made calls. Just because that didn’t happen within their house, it doesn’t make it less private.
Hey, I have a great idea: Why don’t we aim place high quality directional microphones at any house.
By the way it is supposed to be done: With investigation and wiretapping in specific cases.
I see. So you’ve got it worked out where it’s perfectly legal for the NSA to spy on whomever they want, critics be damned. Oddly, a large number of people disagree. I guess they just aren’t as smart as you.
It is my understanding the US Constitution also protects murderers and rapists. It is also my understanding the NSA is not only wiretapping convicted felons, but everybody.
It’s true that all of us, if examined closely enough, is guilty of something. Are you arguing for the kind of “democracy” in which all are presumed guilty and subject to constant surveillance? I don’t think that’s what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when writing the 4th Amendment, which I see you have argued protects nobody at any time.
They hate us for our freedoms.
You think I make the law? I’m just telling you how the courts have interpreted the law, some of their reasons for it, and how these historical developments have led to what the NSA is doing today. If you want to suggest a viable alternative framework, go ahead.
Your understanding is wrong. The NSA is not wiretapping everyone, nor can you wiretap someone just because they are a convicted felon. The NSA is collecting metadata on pretty much everyone’s communications, but not the contents of those communications. Furthermore, the metadata enters into a lockbox, and they legally need reasonable suspicion that a search of the lockbox will reveal information relevant to an investigation concerning a foreign security threat in order to even search that lockbox (although they have been caught performing searches with less than reasonable suspicion, and searches not related to security at all). So it’s not like they’re listening to phone calls.
Also note that they get this metadata from private companies. The relevant section of the Patriot Act allows them to collect “business records” created by telecommunications companies. So this surveillance is already being performed by Google, AT&T, etc. as part of their routine business. The government is simply collecting all of this recorded metadata from them. Do you have a problem with law enforcement getting video from privately-operated surveillance cameras, or getting bank records from your bank? Are these things violations of the 4th Amendment?
Show me where I have said anything even remotely approaching this.
This is an interesting point. In the past, the Court has essentially said that you could do things like this. For example, it’s obviously not a violation of the 4th Amendment to have stakeouts and follow suspects. But in the past it has always been very expensive for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to do things like this, and they would never expend resources to surveil people unless they had a pretty good sense they were doing something wrong. But in today’s world, it’s pretty easy to use electronic surveillance, GPS tracking, etc., and we can no longer rely on limited resources/cost as preventing excessive surveillance.
The Court seems to have shown a growing recognition this in the recent GPS tracking case, US v. Jones, where 4 justices expressed concern over the the implications of new technologies.
This is still supposed to happen. The repository of collected metadata is still only supposed to be searched when they have articulable suspicion. The difference is that the archive allows for mining of past data/communications once that suspicion exists, and not only future data/communications.
I do love “The allegation that the National Security Agency collected more than 70 million “recordings of French citizens’ telephone data” is false.”
“We did not collect any recordings of telephone data.”
“Recordings of… wha? No, did you listen to the telephone conversations?”
“We did not listen to any telephones, no.”
“No, no, the conversations! Did you listen to them?”
“We did not collect any conversations that weren’t recorded.”
“Look, this is useless. How about the data? You collected data on the conversations, right?”
“We did not listen to any recordings of telephone metadata at any time.”
“Oh, bugger off…”
Our phone systems need updating. Open calls are no longer a viable option. Encrypted telephone communications may be the next big thing.
I’d be very interested in signing up for a phone service with end to end voice encryption. Heck, I’d even pay more.
I have a problem with law enforcement taking those things if the bank or camera operator do not first consent and they do not have a warrant.
Most of the time if law enforcement wants to look at a surveillance video the operator of the surveillance camera will have a vested interest in letting them do so since usually it’s a result of a crime committed on the property of the camera operator. If law enforcement wants a video of the camera operator committing a crime captured on his or her own cameras then they need a f*cking warrant.
[quote=“wysinwyg, post:27, topic:12725”]
Most of the time if law enforcement wants to look at a surveillance video the operator of the surveillance camera will have a vested interest in letting them do so since usually it’s a result of a crime committed on the property of the camera operator. If law enforcement wants a video of the camera operator committing a crime captured on his or her own cameras then they need a f*cking warrant.
[/quote]If you keep your communications on your own computer and only transfer files through flash drives or the like, then the government needs a warrant. If you ask Gmail to store and deliver your email, you’re no longer simply using your own infrastructure. You ask your ISP to fetch data for you and you’re no longer only using your own infrastructure. You might not like my analogy, but if pretty closely tracks how snail mail (with its public name and address metadata) is delivered and phone calls (with it’s Constitutionally unprotected phone numbers) are connected.
And why does the vested interest of the camera operator matter? If you think it should be constitutionally protected, then it should be constitutionally protected. Does it matter if AT&T or Google consent? Because they may have a vested interest in not having their services used in the name of terrorism.
In most civilized, rule-of-law countries around the world:
As an individual, you’re allowed to whatever you want, unless there’s a law that specifically forbids something.
As a government, you’re allowed to do nothing, unless there’s a law specifically authorizing it.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
