Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts

Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/6/2017 10:43:26 PM)
In the Warrantless Cellphone Search case, It's the Trump Administration vs. the 4th Amendment. SCOTUS will hear arguments in Carpenter v. U.S. in the coming term...10/02 At issue in Carpenter v. United States is the question of whether the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment when it obtained, without a search warrant, the cellphone records of suspected armed robber Timothy Carpenter. With those records, federal officials identified the cell towers that handled the suspect's calls and then proceeded to trace back his whereabouts during the time periods in which his alleged crimes were committed. That information was later used against Carpenter in court. The administration argued, "the acquisition of a business's records does not constitute a Fourth Amendment 'search' of an individual customer even when the records reflect information pertaining to that customer." "Society has a strong interest in both promptly apprehending criminals and exonerating innocent suspects as early as possible during an investigation," the Trump administration argued. According to the government, in other words, it takes too long and causes too much hassle for law enforcement officials to bother getting a search warrant in cases like this. But that view turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. One of the main purposes of the Fourth Amendment as well as other guarantees in the Bill of Rights is to restrain overzealous government agents before they run roughshod over the rights of individuals. The Trump administration, by contrast, wants to loosen such constitutional restrictions on the cops. It is a heartening sign that the Supreme Court agreed to hear this important case over the objections of the Trump administration. Hopefully the Court will ultimately reject the administration's disfiguring interpretations and issue a decision that gives the Fourth Amendment its due. HERE I agree and this will either accelerate or delay a little while longer, the coming fascist America.

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 12:03:10 AM)
One can just imagine all the FB/twitter/instagram android and iOS users with Outlook and Chrome browsers and email and every page on any web site filthy with 20 different tracking scripts, poking away on their flat implement with their head in the 'cloud,' discussing government intrusion into our lives. Every purchase noted, every next purchase anticipated before you do.

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 12:31:52 AM)
Oh yes, and "the internet of things," so that every command you give to turn on lights and play music and turn the heat or AC up or down and the home 'security' camera capturing the visual thereby are all in the 'cloud' too. Along with the guys and gals writing these algorithms to make best 'monetization' use of that material laughing their arse off when "government intrusion into our lives" is the discussion. "Amateurs!," they say.

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 12:45:06 AM)
In any case, quit blaming all this on "the Trump administration." This is just garden variety justice department BS as has existed through every administration. I mean, if Trump wants to watch 13 yr. old girls explore themselves, all he has to do is hack Google Home or Amazon Echo. I'm sure his buddy Putin is way ahead of him on this Who needs the NSA or FBI.

Made2Obey -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 12:52:42 AM)
Let's be fair about how much Trump had to do with all of this. The event Carpenter was convicted of based on phone records occurred in 2011. This was Obama administration policy. The very same Obama, who campaigned on the promise of reducing government intrusion into the privacy of citizens and government spying upon citizens, and then immediately upon reaching office, turned about on his promise and expanded such programs. Trump just inherited this mess.

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 1:13:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Made2Obey Let's be fair about how much Trump had to do with all of this. The event Carpenter was convicted of based on phone records occurred in 2011. This was Obama administration policy. No it wasn't, dumbfuck. As I clearly stated, this crap goes through every administration. But if you insist on going there; Reagan's pushing laws to lock up more black teenagers and Bush I's initiation and promoting the cause of privatization of the prison system helped immensely the bottom line of the private equity group whom the latter was associated with.

Made2Obey -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 1:42:46 AM)
Racial profiling and prison privatization have no bearing on this case. This came about because Obama expanded the practice of warrantless wiretapping.

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 2:05:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Made2Obey I tell you, as VP Georgie Boy was quite the busy bee. Between pumping Reagan to lock up more black guys and making the sentences mandatory, selling more barrels of anthrax to Saddam Hussein, initiating the push to privatization of the prison system, Oliver North's cocaine shipments to the US, Bush gun shipments to Iran, etc. . . . that guy had a full schedule.

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 2:11:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Made2Obey Racial profiling and prison privatization have no bearing on this case. This came about because Obama expanded the practice of warrantless wiretapping. Quote the proof that Obama initiated what had been and has been going on for decades. Name the book or whatever creditable source. In any case, prove that Obama was the first to expand governmental powers.

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 2:22:10 AM)
And then tell is why you apparently have no issue with the 'private sector' sticking a speculum all the way inside your lumpy ass. Given the intrusion as begot from modern hyper-aggressive technology, we might as well call it "the privates" sector.

Made2Obey -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 2:28:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird In any case, prove that Obama was the first to expand governmental powers. I never said he was first, just that this particular case came about because he reversed his campaign position against warrantless wiretapping once he was in office and expanded it instead. ACLU Agrees

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 2:32:37 AM)
~ Hears crickets as everybody punching and swiping on their phone pads . . . ~ Okay, so where's the nearest mani-pedi? Never mind, I just tripped over three of them even in the process of 'just asking.'

Made2Obey -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 2:33:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird And then tell is why you apparently have no issue with the 'private sector' sticking a speculum all the way inside your lumpy ass. Given the intrusion as begot from modern hyper-aggressive technology, we might as well call it "the privates" sector. I never said a word about the private sector, but for the record I am quite against that. I personally boycott as many sites that collect and sell personal data as much as possible. But this thread is not about the private sector. It's about government intrusion. Try to stay on topic please.

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 2:41:24 AM)
If it's about government intrusion, then it's about intrusion. Try to stay on topic. But while on the topic as you see it; you have yet to demonstrate how Obama was the first or certainly even the most egregious in expanding law enforcement intrusion into our lives. Not well up on American history, are you?

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 2:56:17 AM)
Bonnie Parker was somewhat cute, but those 60 bullet holes of government intrusion didn't exactly do her for the best. Thank goodness for modern tomes and the NSA and Google.

Made2Obey -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 3:00:51 AM)
The topic in this thread is a case before the Supreme Court involving warrantless data collection by the FBI used to convict a private citizen, which the FBI did using expanded powers for such given to them by the Obama administration. No SCOTUS case ever encompasses the entirety of US history. They really won't be taking your personal views on the topic into consideration.

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 3:04:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Made2Obey No SCOTUS case ever encompasses the entirety of US history. Oh good. So then we can have slavery and child labor again at the opportune moment.

Made2Obey -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 3:11:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Bonnie Parker was somewhat cute, but those 60 bullet holes of government intrusion didn't exactly do her for the best. Thank goodness for modern tomes and the NSA and Google. Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow murdered 13 people including several law enforcement officers in the process of robbing banks and other small businesses. Are you claiming she was an innocent victim of the government? I guess you believe she was only robbing those banks to improve her life and her motive was pure. And that has absolutely zilch to do with the thread.

Made2Obey -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 3:14:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird Oh good. So then we can have slavery and child labor again at the opportune moment. Sounds like you are looking forward to that.

Edwird -> RE: Electronic privacy...in 4 weeks SCOTUS starts (9/7/2017 4:10:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Made2Obey No SCOTUS case ever encompasses the entirety of US history. Sounds like optimism on your part, actually. As obtained by ignorance of US history and US government. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, but justice John Marshall said that "the constitution is what we say it is." And; "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" I can deal with the first quote, somewhat, but the second quote is a doozy. Hoo boy, ain't we got fun. That's like the Prussian generals saying if we should go to war or not in 1914. Like prosecutors making up the laws. So that's the mess we've been in ever since. But no, you don't skate that easy. The OP's claim that it's all on Trump, your claim that it's all on Obama. Fail. Fail. In all cases. But your cherry picking by way of standing on ceremony is amusing, gotta say. Here's the news: the FBI planted a bomb and detonated it under the seat of Judi Bari's car, then charged her with felony offense of blowing herself up. *I am absolutely not* making this up**. She eventually won an $11 million settlement against the FBI. Was that Bush I 'policy'?(1990) Believe me, the guy was doing much worse and wouldn't have trifled with such a thing. Don't distract a guy while in the middle of an anthrax sale to Saddam. I would gladly string Janet Reno up by her toes and jab her face with a hot poker for what she ordered in Waco, and even though I will always hate Clinton for not shutting that down before it went too far, I still don't see how anyone could call that 'policy,' or an administrative affair in any event. Larry Summers is another reason I hated Clinton. His caving to Newt Gingrich's bill to make recipients of welfare quit school and go immediately to the lowest paying jobs is another reason I hated Clinton. Why every Republican voter wasn't standing and cheering at all this (you GO, boy!) is beyond me. But, no . . . . So anyway, you and the OP can piss your pants all you want, but it's the same no matter how much you cry about it, no matter who's in office. The "law" is a law unto its own, as we have witnessed in these last few years. Just keep writing new procedure and see what you can get away with.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875