"no reasonable expectation of privacy"

"no reasonable expectation of privacy" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

dovie -> "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/23/2007 6:31:43 PM)
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/fbi_spyware?currentPage=all "Under a ruling this month by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, such surveillance -- which does not capture the content of the communications -- can be conducted without a wiretap warrant, because internet users have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the data when using the internet. " This case involved a kid who was making bomb threats. In consideration of the bomb threat, the surveilance was deemed "a reasonable invasion of privacy" Who decides what is reasonable becomes the question. What is a reasonable expectation of privacy and where is the defining line? Thoughts? dovie

farglebargle -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/23/2007 6:34:45 PM)
Well, to sorta focus the issue, they've held people in custody, without an attorney, in 23 hour solitary for 1300 days plus, so do you really think the Bush Administration gives a shit about your privacy? Until they are picked up by the Federal Marshals and taken into custody for a trial ( or, as some have suggested , letting the same body who tried Milosovic adjudicate their alleged crimes ) the nation will not be safe.

LetUsGoThen -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/23/2007 6:38:03 PM)
The kid deserved it. I'm not worried at all. If the FBI started tracking every person with a freaky Internet history... But I think I might just go ahead and re-image anyway!

Alumbrado -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 4:33:53 AM)
You have very bit as much of an expectation of privacy posting on the internet as you do standing on the street corner yelling through a bullhorn.

farglebargle -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 5:40:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado You have very bit as much of an expectation of privacy posting on the internet as you do standing on the street corner yelling through a bullhorn. Yeah, but I don't expect my ENCRYPTED EMAIL to be stored and then later decrypted. I also expect that the companies I pay for services respect my rights to privacy and confidentiality. I do not see any exemptions to the 4th Amendment, so all this "Our Interpretation is" is clearly bullshit. You want internal surveillance of The People to be LAWFUL? Amend the Constitution. Else you really need to fire all the Government Employees involved and save all their salaries. Remember, UNLESS it is EXPLICITLY DELEGATED, it is NOT A LAWFUL FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT.

Alumbrado -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 5:45:04 AM)
You have no idea what the 4th amendment means, or what the Constitution allows though. So your interpretation really doesn't matter.

farglebargle -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 7:05:12 AM)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What is MEANS is that the Government may under very specific and limited circumstances examine your person, house, papers and effects. They need a warrant, issued after a court establishes PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE TARGET OF THE WARRANT COMMITTED THE ALLEGED CRIME. Since I do not see the PERMISSION TO CONDUCT BLANKET SURVEILLANCE, it is not a lawfully delegated constitutional authority. Do YOU see that permission delegated? I do not see permission to conduct traffic analysis ( pen registers ). Do YOU see that permission delegated? No? Then it doesn't exist. QED.

mnottertail -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 7:15:25 AM)
ya, that no reasonable expectation of privacy has been bandied about in other realms, by the rather worthless makeup of the supreme court. In effect what the founding fathers were thinking it seems, is that the individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any form of transmitted or transmittable media and it can be intercepted by anyone, but that the cd makers, the dvd makers the radio and tv stations have a reasonable expectation of privacy on your same federally owned or regulated medias. Ron

farglebargle -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 7:35:32 AM)
I get your point, but it's wrong to attribute that to the Founders. The Founders clearly said, that which is not explicitly delegated is reserved. Since the authority to conduct traffic analysis is NOT delegated, then it doesn't lawfully exist. Period.

mnottertail -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 7:43:40 AM)
in constitutional law, the interpretations handed down today are supposedly an extension of our founding fathers intent, when writing the constitution. amendments to the constitution are extension of our countries founding intents, there is no new law being created at the constitutional level. Apparently, it must have been the intent, or there is a fucked up judiciary. Which way do you see it? The fathers siding with the corporate (bloated) or police state interests or on the common good and freedom of the individual. We are very much on the same side here farg, it is just that I drip pure venom more often than you.

farglebargle -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 7:56:52 AM)
quote: in constitutional law, the interpretations handed down today are supposedly an extension of our founding fathers intent Anyone who believes that deserves what they get. "Interpretations" are for the illiterates who cannot simply read for themselves.

Real0ne -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 8:19:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: in constitutional law, the interpretations handed down today are supposedly an extension of our founding fathers intent Anyone who believes that deserves what they get. "Interpretations" are for the illiterates who cannot simply read for themselves. i think what is invaluable to the constitution itself is the writings and journals of the founding fathers to the undrstnding of intent. that information is rather hard to come by tho

farglebargle -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 8:32:33 AM)
Well, they deliberated pretty thoroughly on the EXACT TEXT of the Constitution, so I'd suggest that it stands on it's own as the embodiment of their ideas. Understanding where their heads were at, can help reinforce the basic themes, I guess.

Alumbrado -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 9:35:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What is MEANS is that the Government may under very specific and limited circumstances examine your person, house, papers and effects. They need a warrant, issued after a court establishes PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE TARGET OF THE WARRANT COMMITTED THE ALLEGED CRIME. Since I do not see the PERMISSION TO CONDUCT BLANKET SURVEILLANCE, it is not a lawfully delegated constitutional authority. Do YOU see that permission delegated? I do not see permission to conduct traffic analysis ( pen registers ). Do YOU see that permission delegated? No? Then it doesn't exist. QED. Lying about it doesn't make it true FB. There is no requirement in the words above that a warrant must be obtained for any and every search, only that if a warrant is issued, it will meet cetain requirements. 'If' does not mean 'must', which is where your misstatement falls apart. And I'll leave it up to you to explain how you came to the conclusion that "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." means 'secure from any surveillance of anything, even outside of their houses in plain view in a public place'. As far as being forbidden to do anything not specifically enumerated in the Consitution, I'm sure you have rationalized the coefficient clause in the same bizarre manner as you have mangled the rest of the document. Bottom line, is that the Consitution has given to someone else, not you, the power to decide what it means, and how to implement it. And rather than working to defeat real violations of the Constitution, you are playing Chicken Little, declaring a crisis over every use of power that you, yourself would abuse if it were handed to you.

farglebargle -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 9:41:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What is MEANS is that the Government may under very specific and limited circumstances examine your person, house, papers and effects. They need a warrant, issued after a court establishes PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE TARGET OF THE WARRANT COMMITTED THE ALLEGED CRIME. Since I do not see the PERMISSION TO CONDUCT BLANKET SURVEILLANCE, it is not a lawfully delegated constitutional authority. Do YOU see that permission delegated? I do not see permission to conduct traffic analysis ( pen registers ). Do YOU see that permission delegated? No? Then it doesn't exist. QED. Lying about it doesn't make it true FB. There is no requirement in the words above that a warrant must be obtained for any and every search, only that if a warrant is issued, it will meet cetain requirements. 'If' does not mean 'must', which is where your misstatement falls apart. Where is the Constitutional Text authorizing searches and seizures outside of the context of the 4th Amendment. The 4th Amendment is the ONLY TEXT authorizing them, and it CLEARLY requires PROBABLE CAUSE to be established before any warrant is issued. quote: And I'll leave it up to you to explain how you came to the conclusion that "...secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." means 'secure from any surveillance of anything, even outside of their houses in plain view in a public place'. Because THOSE are the ONLY CONDITIONS when any sort of search is permitted. WHERE IS THE TEXT AUTHORIZING WHAT YOU ALLEGE TO BE THE CASE? quote: As far as being forbidden to do anything not specifically enumerated in the Consitution, I'm sure you have rationalized the coefficient clause in the same bizarre manner as you have mangled the rest of the document. That only applies to delegated authority. You cannot use that to magically expand the duly authorized powers ( and the clear reservation of EVERYTHING ELSE via the 9th and 10th Amendments. quote: Bottom line, is that the Consitution has given to someone else, not you, the power to decide what it means, and how to implement it. It doesn't need any decision of what it means. IT SAYS EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS. The feds MUST OBEY IT. Period.

Alumbrado -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 9:53:57 AM)
quote: Where is the Constitutional Text authorizing searches and seizures outside of the context of the 4th Amendment. In the same section allowing government employees to drive cars to work. Since your argument that no one in the government may do anything that isn't specifically spelled out in the original document is pretty well gutted by the coefficient clause and the powers given to the USSC (not to mention common sense), you are wise to avoid answering my question Just move the goalposts and keep on typing in caps. quote: The 4th Amendment is the ONLY TEXT authorizing them, and it CLEARLY requires PROBABLE CAUSE to be established before any warrant is issued. Which is not the same as requiring a warrant before any search or surveillance. Keep up the high school debate tactics, and remember, when in doubt, use caps. Meanwhile, you can rest easy knowing that you have helped obfuscate real discussion of government abuse of the Consitution.

farglebargle -> RE: "no reasonable expectation of privacy" (7/24/2007 9:59:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: Where is the Constitutional Text authorizing searches and seizures outside of the context of the 4th Amendment. In the same section allowing government employees to drive cars to work. Since your argument that no one in the government may do anything that isn't specifically spelled out in the original document is pretty well gutted by the coefficient clause and the powers given to the USSC (not to mention common sense), you are wise to avoid answering my question How difficult is it to understand that the coefficient clause ONLY applies to those authorities delegated? quote: quote: The 4th Amendment is the ONLY TEXT authorizing them, and it CLEARLY requires PROBABLE CAUSE to be established before any warrant is issued. Which is not the same as requiring a warrant before any search or surveillance. Well, aside from authorizing a warrant, what would a court do once Probable Cause is established? I don't see ANY other mention of searches, so that's the only place it's delegated. I don't see ANY other process specified other than going before a court, proving Probable Cause that the target has committed the alleged crime, and then getting a warrant.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125