Homeland security vs. your civil rights - 4th amendment

[PirateMk1]

You do realize some of the data the NSA has acquired is not a violation of individual 4th Amendment rights? Well, I should clarify my remark by stating based on existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a reasonable and plausible argument can be made some of the data they have acquired is not a violation of individual 4th Amendment rights. I am specifically referencing the metadata.

It depends on the contract you had with the given entity you do information business with.

In any case the government should provide warrant as per the Constitution to acquire said meta data and further they should do that for EACH and EVERY person they wish the metadata for.

 

[joG]

With a 9 year old boy that was able to get onto a plane from Minnesota to Las Vegas you would think they would question homeland security and TSA a little more... If this child can clear all barriers who else can?

Also with the NSA we found out that no one is free from the spying they do on us. We have had our civil rights taken away from us. Not being able to use the internet, phones, and other forms of electronic communications with out thinking am i being watched right now? is just wrong.

Below is an portion of an article i read the other day.


Source: Rare.us | Homeland security vs. your civil rights

I totally agree with this we have to stop acting like this is okay. How many attacks has NSA stopped? Where were they with the Boston bombings? There was evidence all over the bombers computer!!!

I am sick to my gut thinking about this. is any one else ready for a change?

We have very effective instruments here to increase our safety. It is powerful, however, and can be misused to our detriment. Also it might be unconstitutional used in some ways. The question seems to me, how we can extract the advantages and control the dangers and avoid constitutional infractions. How do we organize the thing?

 

[NotreDame]

In any case the government should provide warrant as per the Constitution to acquire said meta data and further they should do that for EACH and EVERY person they wish the metadata for.

Why?

It depends on the contract you had with the given entity you do information business with.

Not for purposes of the 4th Amendment regarding metadata.

 

[PirateMk1]

Why?



Not for purposes of the 4th Amendment regarding metadata.

It is for the purposes of ANY data not in government possession because that data is in PRIVATE ownership. The 4th is absolutely clear on this issue. It does not differentiate between types of information or what effects you or one of your assigns has. The government must show cause and obtain a warrant period regardless of ownership status. When in doubt, doubt goes to individuals.

 

[PirateMk1]

We have very effective instruments here to increase our safety. It is powerful, however, and can be misused to our detriment. Also it might be unconstitutional used in some ways. The question seems to me, how we can extract the advantages and control the dangers and avoid constitutional infractions. How do we organize the thing?

In our current government and its size and tendency toward secrecy, there is absolutely no way we should keep this kind of power around. I would revisit the issue when we have a MUCH smaller government and absolute transparency.

 

[joG]

In our current government and its size and tendency toward secrecy, there is absolutely no way we should keep this kind of power around. I would revisit the issue when we have a MUCH smaller government and absolute transparency.

I would not go along with you down that road. We do need institutional and robust control of the use. To stop use would be incredibly expensive and accelerate the degradation of US influence to the point of reducing the well being of the population within a relatively short period..

So we had better go for control and transparency.

 

[PirateMk1]

I would not go along with you down that road. We do need institutional and robust control of the use. To stop use would be incredibly expensive and accelerate the degradation of US influence to the point of reducing the well being of the population within a relatively short period..

So we had better go for control and transparency.

May I ask what does our government need influence for? Serious question here. Everyone seems to think our GOVERNMENT represents us to foreign nationals. Quite frankly they should be the LAST people to represent us.

Smaller government = more government control. More eyes and light on the same thing, which means they get away with less crap. I view government as a necessary evil. Necessary, but evil. Like fire it requires disciplined attention or it gets out of control.

 

[joG]

May I ask what does our government need influence for? Serious question here. Everyone seems to think our GOVERNMENT represents us to foreign nationals. Quite frankly they should be the LAST people to represent us.

Smaller government = more government control. More eyes and light on the same thing, which means they get away with less crap. I view government as a necessary evil. Necessary, but evil. Like fire it requires disciplined attention or it gets out of control.

As long as there is someone to ensure relative security in the international sphere you do not need to protect your interests. That is essentially the definition of free riding and works well. It has been German practice for decades.
The second alternative is a communal entity that robustly ensures everyone's security and everyone pays for. That is how national governments work.
Lacking one of those solutions you do it yourself or lose.

 

[PirateMk1]

As long as there is someone to ensure relative security in the international sphere you do not need to protect your interests. That is essentially the definition of free riding and works well. It has been German practice for decades.
The second alternative is a communal entity that robustly ensures everyone's security and everyone pays for. That is how national governments work.
Lacking one of those solutions you do it yourself or lose.

What interests do we have other than protecting our citizens? If we make sure everyone knows you don't screw with our citizens what's to protect? I think we make things more complicated than need be.

 

[joG]

What interests do we have other than protecting our citizens? If we make sure everyone knows you don't screw with our citizens what's to protect? I think we make things more complicated than need be.

There are plenty of interests that derive from protection of the citizenry. It is been existentially important to keep major shipping lines open and the number of pirate attacks under control would be one of the more visible contexts. This is a rather complicated world and there are a lot of people that want our wealth, income and power. Don't kid yourself.

 

[NotreDame]

It is for the purposes of ANY data not in government possession because that data is in PRIVATE ownership. The 4th is absolutely clear on this issue. It does not differentiate between types of information or what effects you or one of your assigns has. The government must show cause and obtain a warrant period regardless of ownership status. When in doubt, doubt goes to individuals.

Not true. First, a third party is in possession of the data, not you, and therefore, you cannot likely raise any 4th Amendment rights to this data since the data belongs to someone else. The phone companies have a 4th Amendment right to this data but not you because it isn't your property, it doesn't belong to you. The 4th Amendment protects you in regards to your property, personal effects, belongings, and items you own, or in your possession. As a result, since you do not have any ownership in the metadata, the metadata is not in your possession but a 3rd party, then your 4th Amendments are not implicated.

Now the phone companies' 4th Amendment rights may be implicated but you can't raise those rights as they are not your rights but the rights of the phone company.

 

[PirateMk1]

Not true. First, a third party is in possession of the data, not you, and therefore, you cannot likely raise any 4th Amendment rights to this data since the data belongs to someone else. The phone companies have a 4th Amendment right to this data but not you because it isn't your property, it doesn't belong to you. The 4th Amendment protects you in regards to your property, personal effects, belongings, and items you own, or in your possession. As a result, since you do not have any ownership in the metadata, the metadata is not in your possession but a 3rd party, then your 4th Amendments are not implicated.

Now the phone companies' 4th Amendment rights may be implicated but you can't raise those rights as they are not your rights but the rights of the phone company.

Actually that necessarily depends on the contract you have with your provider. Further the argument the metadata is not yours and therefore you have no rights to it is not completely true as the metadata is about you and related to your usage directly it therefore subject to 4th amendment protection for you as well as the company in possession.

I get really annoyed that people, and government, look for ways to bypass peoples rights, I find it despicable.

 

[NotreDame]

Actually that necessarily depends on the contract you have with your provider. Further the argument the metadata is not yours and therefore you have no rights to it is not completely true as the metadata is about you and related to your usage directly it therefore subject to 4th amendment protection for you as well as the company in possession.

I get really annoyed that people, and government, look for ways to bypass peoples rights, I find it despicable.

For 4th Amendment purposes the contract you have is irrelevant at this moment,

In addition, just because the data is "about you" does not bestow upon you any 4th Amendment rights. The plain text of the 4th Amendment is conspicuously devoid of any "data or information about you" language. The 4th Amendment text protects your possessions, your property, things, items, you posses and belong to you. Information, data, etcetera, you reveal to the public or to third parties, like metadata, preclude you from having a 4th Amendment right to the data. The data is in the possession and belongs to someone else, not you, and therefore it is their 4th Amendment rights at issue, not your own or anyone else's

Logical reasoning, rational arguments, and not emotion, such as being "annoyed" or finding something "despicable" is what is paramount. You quite simply have not conjured up a good argument yet.

I reiterate, under the presently existing law, the individual does not have a 4th Amendment right to the metadata. This does not mean they shouldn't or the decision can be read more narrowly under a mosaic theory of the 4th Amendment expectation of privacy and mega metadata collection. However, presently, no such law exists and the logic of Smith v Maryland is compelling.

 

[PirateMk1]

For 4th Amendment purposes the contract you have is irrelevant at this moment,

In addition, just because the data is "about you" does not bestow upon you any 4th Amendment rights. The plain text of the 4th Amendment is conspicuously devoid of any "data or information about you" language. The 4th Amendment text protects your possessions, your property, things, items, you posses and belong to you. Information, data, etcetera, you reveal to the public or to third parties, like metadata, preclude you from having a 4th Amendment right to the data. The data is in the possession and belongs to someone else, not you, and therefore it is their 4th Amendment rights at issue, not your own or anyone else's

Logical reasoning, rational arguments, and not emotion, such as being "annoyed" or finding something "despicable" is what is paramount. You quite simply have not conjured up a good argument yet.

I reiterate, under the presently existing law, the individual does not have a 4th Amendment right to the metadata. This does not mean they shouldn't or the decision can be read more narrowly under a mosaic theory of the 4th Amendment expectation of privacy and mega metadata collection. However, presently, no such law exists and the logic of Smith v Maryland is compelling.

Contracts don't count???? If I have contractual ownership of the data, I have no 4th amendment protections? How is the contract irrelevant?

 

[NotreDame]

Contracts don't count???? If I have contractual ownership of the data, I have no 4th amendment protections? How is the contract irrelevant?

First, I am not aware of any court holding you can contest a search of property in a third party's possession, where the third party also owns the property, on the basis a contract exists asserting you as part owner or owner. Second, it may not make sense to have such a rule. You may be the contractual owner of a car but if you lend your car to your friend, he drives around in it without you, and is stopped and the car is searched, without your consent, I'm not sure it makes sense to think your rights have been implicated, assuming there was a defect with the stop and search of the car.

I am the contractual owner of my cellular phone but if I allow someone to borrow it, and while they have it they willingly give it to police to search it, then my rights haven't plausibly been violated.

 

[rhinefire]

The rights we think we have are not the rights we have.

 

[lawboy]

The 4th Amendment text protects your possessions, your property, things, items, you posses and belong to you.

Textually, yes, but the 4th AM protects people, not places.

 

[lawboy]

I am the contractual owner of my cellular phone but if I allow someone to borrow it, and while they have it they willingly give it to police to search it, then my rights haven't plausibly been violated.

I don't agree with that!

 

[NotreDame]

Textually, yes, but the 4th AM protects people, not places.

Isn't it both? I think the case law protects both but neither one necessitates an outcome contrary to the position I have given in my posts.

 

[NotreDame]

I don't agree with that!

Actually I don't either upon reflection because it isn't parallel to the metadata.

 

[lawboy]

Isn't it both? I think the case law protects both but neither one necessitates an outcome contrary to the position I have given in my posts.

The SC itself has ruled the 4th AM protects people, not places (Katz), sure, your expectation of privacy in your home protects you, you are people.

 

[NotreDame]

The SC itself has ruled the 4th AM protects people, not places (Katz), sure, your expectation of privacy in your home protects you, you are people.

I think the Court has since Katz has said it is both but I could be mistaken. However, Smith v Maryland was decided using the Katz test.

 

[Perotista]

I'm afraid it will only get worse.

Actually a 9 year old (a clever one) would probably have an easier time of slipping through. Who (until now) would suspect a 9 year old of nefarious activity?

But our rulers they love them that Patriot Act and if they can't agree on anything else, any law controlling the masses sells well to both sides of the aisle.

that is the truth.