Curtis Lemay
Posts: 12969
Joined: 9/17/2004
From: Houston, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
No one has a reasonable expectation of privacy if in public view whether on their own property or public property. But further in the case of an attack on another person, your rights get trumped by the victim’s rights not to be molested and the police are/would be required by law to act in their defense.
A better example of privacy rights would be something illegal left on your coffee table in your front room. A police officer walking past your front door looks in through a door you left open and sees it and then arrests you. This would be legal as you left your door open and have no reasonable expectation of privacy from public eyes that look in through the open door.
If the door is closed however and the officer walks up and opens the mail slot to look in or goes to a window, then he has violated your privacy as you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such a case and the officer has no probable cause to explain his intrusive surveillance of your property.
Phone and mail communications have been upheld time and again by the courts as private communications and are some of the hardest things to get warrants to break into for law enforcement.
You win a prize if you can find the word "privacy" anywhere in the Constitution, much less the 4th Amendment. Supreme Court rulings vary with the composition of the court. They can and do get things wrong and get reversed by subsequent compositions later. Ultimately, it goes back to the original intent of the authors. For sure they did not anticipate electronic surveillance - nor did they mention "surveillance" in the amendment. It's a semantic trick to substitute the word "search" when the actual action is surveillance.
Regardless, that would only matter if it were being used for Domestic purposes - which it isn't. If Grant could do it, so can the NSA.
quote:
It is not anonymous, they are collecting everything they can and doing it without regard to your constitutionally protected rights. Filtering on computers is easy to do if you want to do it. I doubt it would be very difficult for them to filter out US based IP addresses if they really wanted to, but they don’t want to and didn’t even try.
I mean the computers are anonymous - they don't get any thrill out of reading your emails, and don't alert humans unless they get a hit on some trigger.
quote:
Sure the people who set up this over-reaching surveillance may have done it with noble intent, then again perhaps not given everything else they have done. Either way history has shown, at some point someone will come along and use powers like these to oppress their rivals.
If and when that happens you can howl about it. Till then we are at WAR. You would think the people on this board, of all places, would get that.
quote:
Our rights are supposed to be inviolate. Our founders set it up this way because they understood perfectly that governments are simply systems of control and people who get into government usually have an agenda they want to impose on others against their will and the government allows them the power to impose.
Limiting government power by spelling out rights that could not be touched was supposed to protect all Americans from these kinds of people. The fact this administration has already used the IRS to oppress their rival’s shows that they are more than willing to do whatever they can do with whatever power available to them to oppress whomever they wish.
You've fabricated a right we don't have and that isn't worth anything. Before the law bursts into my house and tears it up or threatens my family, I want probable cause. But computer surveillance - I don't care about that and don't see how anyone is harmed by it other than criminals.
|
Printable Version
RE: Right to Privacy? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread