|
Real0ne -> RE: Can you hear me now? NSA & Verizon can (6/7/2013 8:07:45 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
quote:
the words spoken in your conversation are your creation hence your private property. they have no "legitimate" authority to trespass upon your property
You mischaracterize the NSA/Verizon controversy. Spoken words are not involved in the data mining. Only phone numbers, dates/times of calls, duration of calls, and connections.
Not . . one . . citizen . . . . . NOT ONE CITIZEN has stepped forward to show how they were inconvenienced, embarrassed or harmed by this program. However, a number of citizens were inconvenienced when they were unable to take the elevator down from the high floors of the Twin Trade Towers and had to exit by window instead. I would prefer the inconvenience of having my phone calls in a meta data base. The rest is all conspiracy theorists hyperventilating.
And please do not bore me with your conspiracy theories about the 9/11 event.
what anyone does is their own business. they do not have the legitimate authority to SPY on anyone without a court order.
Yes it is an inconvenience and in fact a violation of con rights as well as a due process violation.
quote:
Katz involved eavesdropping by means of an electronic listening device placed on the outside of a telephone booth—a location not within the catalog ("persons, houses, papers, and effects") that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. We held that the 33*33 Fourth Amendment nonetheless protected Katz from the warrantless eavesdropping because he "justifiably relied" upon the privacy of the telephone booth. Id., at 353. As Justice Harlan's oft-quoted concurrence described it, a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable. See id., at 361. We have subsequently applied this principle to hold that a Fourth Amendment search does not occur—even when the explicitly protected location of a house is concerned—unless "the individual manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search," and "society [is] willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable." Ciraolo, supra, at 211. We have applied this test in holding that it is not a search for the police to use a pen register at the phone company to determine what numbers were dialed in a private home, Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 743-744 (1979), and we have applied the test on two different occasions in holding that aerial surveillance of private homes and surrounding areas does not constitute a search, Ciraolo, supra; Florida v. Riley, 488 U. S. 445 (1989).
The present case involves officers on a public street engaged in more than naked-eye surveillance of a home. We have previously reserved judgment as to how much technological enhancement of ordinary perception from such a vantage point, if any, is too much. While we upheld enhanced aerial photography of an industrial complex in Dow Chemical, we noted that we found "it important that this is not an area immediately adjacent to a private home, where privacy expectations are most heightened," 476 U. S., at 237, n. 4 (emphasis in original).
Reversing that approach would leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology— including imaging technology that could discern all human 36*36 activity in the home. While the technology used in the present case was relatively crude, the rule we adopt must take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in development.[3
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15840045591115721227&q=government+spying&hl=en&as_sdt=2,50
information is only collected if it is useable in some form. Peoples actions and daily activities are their own private affair both in and out of the home.
any information collected without a probable cause and a warrant is a serious inconvenience and trespass.
the courts have no been broad enough and in the katz case there would have been a suit there against the telephone company as well regardless of the supreme court decision.
and you dont stand a snowballs chance in hell against me in a 911 debate LOL
|
|
|
|
