What 'added methods'? Mass wiretapping of email communications has been enabled since the Patriot Act was enacted.
Surely there are some limits though. For instance, it might be cons utional to have a videocamera pointed at the front of your home, from the street. Does that mean it's something we should allow our government to do?
Our government has been able to track down people before GPS, so why risk a number of civil liberty abuses by allowing it now?
First of all, lets distinguish between what the executive branch can do vs. federal, state, and local. Congress does not control executive decision, but makes laws for the others.
I may be wrong, but such a fixed camera like that would be illegal.
What do you want from me? I would like to see no surveillance, wiretapping, etc. I Do recognize the need of some of this.
They still used trackers. Just older technology. GPS trackers are just more efficient and reliable.
Red light traffic cameras are a much more efficient means of enforcing traffic laws at traffic lights (and increases the amount of revenue a municipality receives). Does that mean it's a good idea? Is the use of such surveillance technology consistent with the American tradition, in particular, the spirit of the Declaration and Cons ution? Granted, in no part of those do ents is an official opinion specifically given as to red light traffic cameras.
As for GPS tracking, unless there's a court order, to with that. And we give a bit too much credence to the existence of a court order when it comes to infringements on our liberty. How much would it take to get a warrant to track someone because the target might be dealing in drugs according to a statement by an agent of the state?
Again, I note the self proclaimed libertine cheering on and defending some rather noxious practices of the state.
Of course there's always such a "need" in a society in which everyone is a criminal.
Come on now, you know better. At least I hope so.
When it comes to terrorism, life and death, a declared Jihad against us, I am willing to accept the things our government does within "reasonable proof" or the fourth amendment.
The question should be, why aren't you?
Please give some examples of officers acting on probable cause without a warrant.
Ah yes, the terrorist bogeyman that magically changes the Cons ution. They hate us because we're free, so let's cease being free and maybe they'll go away.
Doesn't change it at all. I'm sorry if you don't understand that.
I don't really have a problem with red light cameras or any other big brother cameras from a cons utional standpoint, as long as they remain pointed in a manner as if looking from public view.
You're joking, right?
I take it by your view, the police would need a warrant to make an arrest.
Think about that for a moment, before continuing to look the fool.
Red light traffic cameras are of dubious cons utional legality to begin with. It's been argued successfully in a plethora of states that they violate the confrontational clause of the sixth amendment.
What would be illegal about it, assuming it was placed in a public place and not your property?
Considering that the gov't can read your private emails without warrants, why shouldn't they be able to see when you leave your home as well? Surely they'd only start looking when there was su ious activity.
Conversely, why would the police request warrants to a judge to make arrests?
Think about that for a moment, before continuing to look the fool.
I'm reasonable sure that law prevents a f8ixed camera on residential property that sees doors and windows. I could be wrong on that though.
They should only be able to read them with probable cause, which would require a sufficient chain to get to yours or my emails.
Do you believe that probable cause an a warrant go hand in hand?
like I said before, a warrant requires probable cause. probable cause does not require a warrant. There is a large undefined gray area as to what probable cause is. Impossible to discuss that with people who believe in warrant only searches. Therefor, we seem to be at a standstill.
Basically.
The validity of the Cons ution is entirely dependent on the supposed contemporary threat. A 'cons utional conservative' indeed.
There's no need for probable cause since the Patriot Act was enacted. Emails were deemed as database records previously, which only required a subpoena.
The cons ution does not change, without an amendment.
Nice ploy, but inaccurate.
When you get serious about the topic, let us know.
Does not compute. You seem to change your mind how far the 4th amendment goes depending on the existence of 'terrorism, life and death, a declared Jihad against us' or not.
I am serious. Perhaps you're merely misinformed.
In the United States, privacy of correspondence is derived from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Cons ution and thus restricted by the requirement for a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
After 180 days in the U.S., email messages lose their status as a protected communication under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and become just another database record. This means that a subpoena instead of a warrant is all that's needed to force email providers such as Google's Gmail to produce a copy.
Since the Patriot Act was passed, it's unclear whether this ECPA protection is worth much anymore in the U.S., or whether it even applies to email that originates from non-citizens in other countries.
E-Mail Privacy
I don't know what part you don't understand.
Remember, I claim the executive branch only needs to comply with the cons ution. Lower authorities need to comply with federal law also.
Last I checked, the 4th amendment is part of the cons ution.
Your point?
Still need to have probable cause for that subpoena, right?
Care to fill us all in ate why a warrant is OK, but not a subpoena? Congress sets the laws, right? Congress in this case may be authorizing a government agency to act in that judicial capacity, which they have a cons utional right to do. Or am I wrong?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote