|
| 11 Jun 2013 08:10 PM |
Thrice I've posted this, and hopefully this latest rendition garners some thoughtful replies for the first time. Since I seem to be the only one that holds this view, I imagine the ensuing debate will be fascinating. Give it a gander:
The 4th Amendment has generally been interpreted as follows: Intelligence collection is permissible without a warrant where the suspect has no reasonable expectation of privacy (See Katz v. United States, 1967). We may refer to this arena as "outside"; everything enclosed is thus "inside" and requires a warrant.
We strike this balance because it would be an unfortunate world indeed in which the 4th amendment protected either everything or nothing. In the former, police would need probable cause to even walk down the street; in the latter, nothing would preclude egregious invasions of privacy. Thus, constabulary forces are permitted to execute warrantless surveillance "outside".
The ends of physical surveillance (the means) are generally location, time, and identity. Police, through clandestine observation, can record the when a suspect was at a particular location and to where they were going. This is entirely lawful, and well within the bounds of the 4th amendment.
For obvious reasons, the inside/outside distinction is not applicable to the internet. It could be interpreted to mean that all wireless communication is "outside", or that the internet, as an "environment" in itself, encloses all information within it. Both scenarios present the same difficulties as an all-or-nothing 4th amendment--either no crime will be solved, or our rights will be blatantly trampled--and thus are equally foolish.
A new means are necessary and expedient to reach the same end as traditional surveillance (notice I am assuming that the 4th Amendment is technology neutral, if you have any concerns with this assumption please raise them) . Thus, internet surveillance must consider content versus non-content information. Non-content information--the kind collected by the Administration--details where a user has been, and where they are going.
This collection of addresses has ample precedent. The US Postal Service maintains a record of from whom and to whom mail travels (non-content), but does not infringe upon the content of the letter itself (at least without a warrant). Telephone records are being treated the same way--the government collects information on location, time, and identity, but cannot lawfully make a warrantless search of the content.
If we consider the 4th Amendment to be both technology neutral and an ends, not a means, it is clear that the Administration's surveillance is both lawful and prudent. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Jun 2013 08:32 PM |
| Bump for SirHurricane, Pepper, et al. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
thepit44
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Sep 2008 |
| Total Posts: 21143 |
|
| |
|
|
| 11 Jun 2013 10:22 PM |
| Don't care if it is constitutional but it's wrong. I think they also monitor other countries? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
thepit44
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Sep 2008 |
| Total Posts: 21143 |
|
|
| 11 Jun 2013 10:24 PM |
| Under what grounds can you say that they are not listening to our phone calls? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 06:43 AM |
A war against terror is a war for law. Therefore, any disavowal of our statues will herald the loss of our legitimacy and, consequently, the loss of this war. We must assume that the United States is a rights-respecting State of consent, simply because it must be.
If, however, such surveillance is ever a necessary and proportional means of winning this war, a state of consent may constitutionally authorize those intrusions, 4th Amendment notwithstanding. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 07:16 AM |
| Not just phone calls, but texting, video calls, skype. Everything we do might be watched or not. If we have Webcams, we could be watched without the webcam appearing on (I'm not sure if that's possible.) All forms of media basically made to watch us. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Oreology
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Sep 2012 |
| Total Posts: 507 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 07:19 AM |
In the future, a secretive society would be nonexistant and literally everything will be monitored. Why? As humans envision a perfect human society, we are moving on towards a life like that of "The Giver" (A book).
Okay I might be exaggerating, but like, everything would be monitored, everything would be a heavily globalised monoculture and whatnot.
No, it's not biology or psychology, it's oreology. The study of attraction. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 07:26 AM |
Everything we do might be watched or not.
____
As I've repeatedly emphasized, we must assume the negative. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 07:27 AM |
"The Giver" (A book).
____
Hi, I'm not illiterate, nice to meet you too. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 09:53 AM |
Wait a second, Mr. Pizza. The Fourth amendment doesn't simply guarantee the right against unwarranted searches, but also unwarranted seizures.
Before I get going on that, I wish to note to you the exact text of the Fourth Amendment. It nullifies 'unreasonable' searches and seizures by the government. Perhaps we have different definitions by what unreasonable is, but I think we can both agree that wiretapping phone conversations, hacking email accounts, and forcing Google to hand over google search information, is in clear violation of the fourth amendment, that states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I am entitled to my right to privacy, as an American citizen, guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. This isn't something reserved for terrorists and criminals. It is a basic right of a human being - to be able to choose what information you share, whom you share it with, and when you share it.
My documents. My effects. My house. My self. These are things that are guaranteed to me as a RIGHT. Not a privilege. A right.
They can tap my phones, hack my email, and track my google searches: but they have to do so with a warrant, supported by Oath, or affirmation, which particularly describes the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Which is granted to me in the constitution. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 10:43 AM |
| Even the usa is spying on its own country! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:01 AM |
In agreeance with Quadruplet, I must say that their method of storing 'suspicious' data is unreasonable.
They should have three categories, a green category, a yellow, and a red. I would think it reasonable if they examined the data, and if it had no suspicion, than it would go to a 'green' category, which would be immediately deleted. If the suspect being monitored had been in trouble with the law before, or the content of the data was suspicious, then it would be 'yellow', and go to an archive. And finally, if the data was confirmed as criminal, it would go to a separate, 'red' archive, and be investigated with any yellow evidence immediately.
I see no reason for them to store any data I have that isn't suspicious. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:02 AM |
"The Giver" (A book).
____
Hi, I'm not illiterate, nice to meet you too.
------------------------ For the record, "The Giver" is a book, exactly titled like that.
It is about a utopian society where everything is outlawed, even colors, and no one chooses their wife/husband or job. The end is a cliffhanger. I highly recommend the book. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:10 AM |
Try "Anthem" by Ayn Rand. It's about a futuristic 'utopia' where you cannot do anything that isn't approved by the majority. Everyone does what they're told, because they're afraid that if they say anything, or do anything, that the majority dislikes, they'll be burned at the stake.
It's a good book, around 100 pages, and is public domain.
It's centered around the lone guy who wants to be free, to think for himself. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
tomato12
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4053 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:14 AM |
They should have three categories, a green category, a yellow, and a red. I would think it reasonable if they examined the data, and if it had no suspicion, than it would go to a 'green' category, which would be immediately deleted. If the suspect being monitored had been in trouble with the law before, or the content of the data was suspicious, then it would be 'yellow', and go to an archive. And finally, if the data was confirmed as criminal, it would go to a separate, 'red' archive, and be investigated with any yellow evidence immediately. ___ But they cannot examine the data without a warrant. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:17 AM |
| @tomato12 : Agreed. They should only be able to examine the yellow or red data with a warrant. The agents examining the data and putting it into categories should do it without knowledge of who they are actually examining, and be sworn to secrecy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
tomato12
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4053 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:19 AM |
| But how can they decide if it is yellow or red data? They would need to examine the data first. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:21 AM |
But how can they decide if it is yellow or red data? They would need to examine the data first. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ True. Each person would have a number. Those deciding which category it fell into could view the person by their number, not their name, and be sworn to secrecy. Only those warranted to investigate would know the true identity of the subject. Some of the procedure could be automated, as well. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
tomato12
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4053 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:27 AM |
True. Each person would have a number. Those deciding which category it fell into could view the person by their number, not their name, and be sworn to secrecy. Only those warranted to investigate would know the true identity of the subject. Some of the procedure could be automated, as well. ___ That is still searching warrantless, and it ultimately removes my individuality by giving me a number. The best thing to do is to stop having such an awful foreign policy that causes terrorist attacks. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:32 AM |
That is still searching warrantless, and it ultimately removes my individuality by giving me a number. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It doesn't remove your individuality, it protects it, and for the record, justice is blind.
I am just trying to come up with a fair compromise. I totally agree with you on foreign policy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
tomato12
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Mar 2009 |
| Total Posts: 4053 |
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:34 AM |
| There is no compromise here. No matter what way you do it, someone, or something, knows who you are and what you said. Wether it is a computer or a person, it is stored somewhere. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 12 Jun 2013 11:39 AM |
Yes. You can't just reform it. It either stays how it is and gets worse, or it is stopped.
The only way to regulate it would be to put it under oversight. The problem is, that the constitution already restricts it, yet our representatives won't do anything about it. So oversight is pointless without a more Libertarian leaning Congress.
It needs to be stopped completely. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|