On civil liberties, Obama is worse than Bush

[Winehole23]

No it's not, but it still bothers me.

[Marcus Bryant]

Salvation comes from accepting Uncle Sam as your savior and opening your heart to Him.

[Marcus Bryant]

How can you live free if you don't do as you're told?

[Spurminator]

Does the US Postal service make all costumers agree to a "condition of terms" that says they can open and share your correspondence if they choose to?

Can you show me an online activity that doesn't have such a clause in the "terms" somewhere, that they can share with third parties?

When I began using my current email account 12 years ago I do not recall agreeing to allow my email provider to share my emails with third parties.

[LnGrrrR]

I think this has been among the more disappointing aspects of the Obama presidency (whether you think all of his choices have been bad ones or most of his choices have been good). There was a belief, during the 2008 campaign, that an Obama presidency would see a rollback of post 9/11 legislation that enhanced the power of government vis-a-vis the people and that the primacy of the 4th and 5th Amendment's protective power would re-emerge. Not so much.

Exactly.

[LnGrrrR]

In the case of email surveillance, how would one know one has been searched in the first place?

Bingo. One wouldn't.

[LnGrrrR]

When one is hauled into court for a crime. Since when is there an expectation of privacy on the Internet?

Email, for one instance.

[Spurminator]

I'll take the pepsi challenge on this. Why do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy to email where 1. It can be accessed by others, i.e. Google or your ISP and 2. Is stored on servers outside the home in an analogous way to bank account records stored at a bank - to which there's no expectation of privacy?

Why do we have passwords?

[Oh, Gee!!]

That's incorrect. The fourth amendment protects those areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. You tell me: is it reasonable to expect my gmail account is private?

since it has a password that only you know, i'd say yes.

[LnGrrrR]

Does the US Postal service make all costumers agree to a "condition of terms" that says they can open and share your correspondence if they choose to?

Can you show me an online activity that doesn't have such a clause in the "terms" somewhere, that they can share with third parties?

Just because it has a clause doesn't mean it's Cons utional. Surely, you'll agree to that, right?

[Blake]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072806141.html

....Administration officials noted that the act specifies in one clause that Internet and other companies have a duty to provide electronic communication transactional records to the FBI in response to a national security letter.

But the next clause specifies only four categories of basic subscriber data that the FBI may seek: name, address, length of service and toll billing records. There is no reference to electronic communication transactional records.

The officials said the transactional information at issue, which does not include Internet search queries, is the functional equivalent of telephone toll billing records, which the FBI can obtain without court authorization. Learning the e-mail addresses to which an Internet user sends messages, they said, is no different than obtaining a list of numbers called by a telephone user.


....Marc Zwillinger, an attorney for Internet companies, said some providers are not giving the FBI more than the four categories specified. He added that with the rise of social networking, the government's move could open a significant amount of Internet activity to government surveillance without judicial authorization. "A Facebook friend request -- is that like a phone call or an e-mail? Is that something they would sweep in under an NSL? They certainly aren't getting that now."

I fail to see how this is worse than Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll take the pepsi challenge on this. Why do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy to email where 1. It can be accessed by others, i.e. Google or your ISP and 2. Is stored on servers outside the home in an analogous way to bank account records stored at a bank - to which there's no expectation of privacy?

Why do corporations spend thousands on securing their network then? I think you're underestimating the type of sensitive information that email can contain.

As well, email is, at its core, an electronic version of snail mail. If it's illegal to break into someone's mail, why is it ok to break into an electronic version of that? Is it acceptable since it's easier, or because the end user can't tell the info was read already?

[Wild Cobra]

Just because it has a clause doesn't mean it's Cons utional. Surely, you'll agree to that, right?

No.

If you agree to take a service based on their terms, they can do as their terms say.

[Wild Cobra]

I fail to see how this is worse than Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

No. This is clearly uncons utional. Warrants are not required when there is probable cause.

[LnGrrrR]

How would it be a person or effect? Your person is your body and your effects are like bags. It might be paper, but does the 4th protect intangible papers that can be accessed by others?

It's not intangible... it exists in actual bits. Unless you happen to have a ghost computer?

[LnGrrrR]

No.

If you agree to take a service based on their terms, they can do as their terms say.

Bull .

If I write up a contract saying that someone will be my slave/indentured servant, and they sign it, is it Cons utional?

[Wild Cobra]

Bull .

If I write up a contract saying that someone will be my slave/indentured servant, and they sign it, is it Cons utional?

Stop taking extremes. Yes, there are reasonable limits.

[Blake]

No. This is clearly uncons utional. Warrants are not required when there is probable cause.

The thread le clearly states "On civil liberties...." not "In terms of violating the Cons ution....."

RIF

[ElNono]

I fail to see how this is worse than Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

It isn't.

[Blake]

It isn't.

I don't think so either, but I'm willing to continue to listen to reasons why it might be.

[ElNono]

No. This is clearly uncons utional. Warrants are not required when there is probable cause.

Not in wiretapping law.
That's why there's a FISA court to oversee if there is probable cause.
Why did the secret NSA program evade the court's oversight?

[Wild Cobra]

Not in wiretapping law.
That's why there's a FISA court to oversee if there is probable cause.
Why did the secret NSA program evade the court's oversight?

Not when the communications companies granted them access. there is a difference between asking, and compelling.

[LnGrrrR]

Stop taking extremes. Yes, there are reasonable limits.

Using extremes is how law is determined. Anyone can write a law that handles everyday items.

So, you've admitted that there ARE some contracts that are uncons utional. Your premise, then, that agreeing to a contract automatically makes something legal/cons utional is flawed.

[Wild Cobra]

Using extremes is how law is determined. Anyone can write a law that handles everyday items.

So, you've admitted that there ARE some contracts that are uncons utional. Your premise, then, that agreeing to a contract automatically makes something legal/cons utional is flawed.

You know that's not my intent. Contracts cannot compel what is already illegal.

Should I start thinking of you as a troll too?

[ElNono]

Not when the communications companies granted them access. there is a difference between asking, and compelling.

Strawman. Access is irrelevant from procedure.
By law, American LE needs to go through FISA or a judge to wiretap citizens.