The Real History of Domestic Spying

[Hard Truth]

Agreed. Your health records are considered private and protected by HIPAA (with exceptions). Even when your medical info is shared with other doctors (for doctor to doctor consultations, etc) that info is protected.




People's unwillingness to perform due diligence is not a defense. And people have a choice. No one forces them to post on the internet or watch cable.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Individuals receive no Fourth Amendment protection unless they can demonstrate that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched or the property that was seized. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection…. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1976). In general the Court has said that individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own bodies, Personal Property, homes, and business offices. Individuals also enjoy a qualified expectation of privacy in their automobiles.

Individuals ordinarily possess no reasonable expectation of privacy in things like bank records, vehicle location and vehicle paint, garbage left at roadside for collection, handwriting, the smell of luggage, land visible from a public place, and other places and things visible in plain or open view. Houseguests typically do not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in the homes they are visiting, especially when they do not stay overnight and their sole purpose for being inside the house is to participate in criminal activity such as a drug transaction. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1998). Similarly, a defendant showing only that he was a passenger in a searched car has not shown an expectation of privacy in the car or its contents. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978). Both the houseguest and the motor vehicle passenger must assert a property or possessory interest in the home or motor vehicle before a court will recognize any Fourth Amendment privacy interests such that would prevent a police officer from searching those places without first obtaining a warrant.
Reasonable expectation of privacy legal definition of Reasonable expectation of privacy. Reasonable expectation of privacy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

You may not agree, the courts may not always agree, but I believe most people reasonably expect that information about their use of telephones and the internet will only be seen by employees of the service providers for billing purposes. If an employee of one of those service providers publicly disclosed that information without authorization I bet they would be fired and they might even be charged with a crime.

For those who think such information is not protected, I challenge you to post your phone bill information online so we can all see it.

 

[sangha]

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Individuals receive no Fourth Amendment protection unless they can demonstrate that they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was searched or the property that was seized. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that what "a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection…. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1976). In general the Court has said that individuals enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own bodies, Personal Property, homes, and business offices. Individuals also enjoy a qualified expectation of privacy in their automobiles.

Individuals ordinarily possess no reasonable expectation of privacy in things like bank records, vehicle location and vehicle paint, garbage left at roadside for collection, handwriting, the smell of luggage, land visible from a public place, and other places and things visible in plain or open view. Houseguests typically do not possess a reasonable expectation of privacy in the homes they are visiting, especially when they do not stay overnight and their sole purpose for being inside the house is to participate in criminal activity such as a drug transaction. Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 119 S. Ct. 469, 142 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1998). Similarly, a defendant showing only that he was a passenger in a searched car has not shown an expectation of privacy in the car or its contents. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 99 S. Ct. 421, 58 L. Ed. 2d 387 (1978). Both the houseguest and the motor vehicle passenger must assert a property or possessory interest in the home or motor vehicle before a court will recognize any Fourth Amendment privacy interests such that would prevent a police officer from searching those places without first obtaining a warrant.
Reasonable expectation of privacy legal definition of Reasonable expectation of privacy. Reasonable expectation of privacy synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

You may not agree, the courts may not always agree, but I believe most people reasonably expect that information about their use of telephones and the internet will only be seen by employees of the service providers for billing purposes. If an employee of one of those service providers publicly disclosed that information without authorization I bet they would be fired and they might even be charged with a crime.

I'm sure that would be contrary to company policy, so they would be right for terminating that employee. And it probably would be considered theft of some sort since that info belongs to the company, not the employee.

For those who think such information is not protected, I challenge you to post your phone bill information online so we can all see it.

That was hysterical

 

[Trip]

Once again, I stopped reading your post after a short while because, once again, you've gone off on some hysterical tangent.

My questions were related to the collection of health records, not my EZ-Pass activity

I was not answering your "questions", ...

... nor was I commenting about EZ-Pass activity,..

... but rahter was referencing your prejudicial disregard of federal government intrusion on our rights and freedoms, not private industry, while having no enumerated constitutional authority to do so, and numerous constitutional prohibitions from doing so.

 

[sangha]

I was not answering your "questions", ...

Of course you weren't. You won't do what you can't do.

 

[Trip]

Of course you weren't. You won't do what you can't do.

I won't do what is pointless and irrelevant to the real concern here.

IN fact, my address of your highly prejudicial assumptions rendered your questions entirely moot.

 

[sangha]

I won't do what is pointless and irrelevant to the real concern here.

IN fact, my address of your highly prejudicial assumptions rendered your questions entirely moot.

No, as even you pointed out, your rant had nothing to do with my question (btw, questions are not assumptions)

 

[jwzg]

I won't do what is pointless and irrelevant to the real concern here.

IN fact, my address of your highly prejudicial assumptions rendered your questions entirely moot.

Clear out your PM's chief.

 

[Trip]

No, as even you pointed out, your rant had nothing to do with my question (btw, questions are not assumptions)

Even as I pointed out, your question had nothing to do with the OP, but rather was only seeking to provide prejudicial cover for the government doing what it has no authority to do.

No, questions are not assumptions, but then your questions were not your only comment in this thread, and are in fact based on corrupt, inaccurate assumptions.

 

[sangha]

Even as I pointed out, your question had nothing to do with the OP,

Of course it didn't. I was asking a poster about health info in response to remarks she made about health care info.

No, questions are not assumptions, but then your questions were not your only comment in this thread, and are in fact based on corrupt, inaccurate assumptions.

So you quoted one post to address comments I made in a different post?

And you took offense when someone pointed out how non-sequitorial you've been? :lamo

 

[Trip]

Of course it didn't. I was asking a poster about health info in response to remarks she made about health care info.



So you quoted one post to address comments I made in a different post?

And you took offense when someone pointed out how non-sequitorial you've been? :lamo

I'm really exasperated that I not only have to outline this for you, but have to color it in as well.

You referenced "Records" as if the narrow subject of health care records were the only records we have to be concerned with government accessing, and doing so without any constitutional authority. This has bearing on your previous narrow scope of records being limited to corporations, while again giving the federal government a pass, despite the fact that this country is founded on the recognition that the greatest violator of our freedoms, and the one to be most prohibited, is the government itself.

The commonality between your comments is that you're ignoring the fact that the Federal government has ZERO constitutional authority to engage in any of this! None! This has bearing on the OP, despite your now repeatedly fighting to keep the discussion to the narrowness of your comment, which is a deliberate blindness born of the rabid ideology that evidently embrace, which is entirely antithetical to freedoms, and deliberately prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

Does this help you any? Your own inability, or refusal, to follow along, does not constitute my comments being non sequitous.

 

[sangha]

I'm really exasperated that I not only have to outline this for you, but have to color it in as well.

You referenced "Records" as if the narrow subject of health care records were the only records we have to be concerned with government accessing, and doing so without any constitutional authority.

and once again, you go off with non-sequitors, and so I stopped reading after the above.

The poster I questioned had posted specifically about health care records, and so I asked specifically about health care records.

 

[Trip]

and once again, you go off with non-sequitors, and so I stopped reading after the above.

The poster I questioned had posted specifically about health care records, and so I asked specifically about health care records.

Once again, my comments going off the liberal plantation intending to enslave us, which you're clearly desperate to prohibit, does not constitute my arguments being non sequiturs.

Evidently you stopped reading after socialist teachers put Marx's Communist Manifesto under your nose and told you it was gospel.

Incidentally. claiming you have not read anything beyond my initial comment does not provide much support for your other claim that my response is a non sequitur, but don't worry, that's only for people logically engaging in open address of the subject while applying their acquired skills of discrimination.

 

[Objective Voice]

Why are you assuming that they only have the phone numbers and not the name of the person associated with the phone number?

I'm not assuming anything. I've read the section of the law that pertains.