On civil liberties, Obama is worse than Bush

[Wild Cobra]

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.

I have said a time or two on some past thread(s) that i didn't fear the proper use of things like the Patriot Act. Only how some individuals would abuse the intent. I don't mean the politicians so much as the workers who have access. They could be board at work, and start searching for their friends, enemies, neighbors, etc.

I see no reason for this extra stuff the democrats want. All it does in my view is allow for even more abuse from individuals with access.

How about that Dell technical support employee that downloaded the woman's nude pictures for example. When data can be accessed, abuse will arise.

[vy65]

You suggested there was no ambiguity at all.

When/where?

[Marcus Bryant]

That's an abstraction. The point is that we shouldn't expect the same protections for individual rights that existed in the 18th century because we don't live in the 18th century anymore. It's not zero sum either; the law allows a warrantless search of email address information, something I'm not so sure one has an expectation of privacy in the first place.

So lack of specificity bothers you. Since a do ent written in the 18th century did not anticipate changes in communications technology, according to you, that renders it null and void. Yet, apparently, it's not so abstract for you to reference it yourself as a check on executive power. OK.

How does the law result in a totalitarian regime? Would you rather the government be unable to regulate the Internet in any way?

I would rather that a new technology not be deemed somehow different when it comes to the exercise of government authority simply because it's new. Progress does not require a change in the understanding of the 4th amendment, which apparently is not abstract enough for you to feel comfortable with its protections.

[Winehole23]

You suggested: (a) that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists wrt to emails; and (b) that in any case warrantless searches are legal, which is funny since Congress had to immunize the telecoms back in 2008 to keep them out of legal jeopardy, and to prevent any legal discovery about the government's "legal" (according to you) program of warrantless surveillance.

[vy65]

The abstraction was your conclusion that regulating email = totalitarianism. I never claimed that the 4th amendment is null and void; I said that it has to be adapted to new technologies. I also agree that there may be some validity to your argument that we shouldn't get rid of cons utional principles because of a new invention. So sticking to that idea - why do I have a reasonable expectation of privacy to my email?

[Wild Cobra]

I wasn't aware that the 4th amendments requirement of probable cause was abolished. And progress is new technology like the Internet that gives people new avenues to commit crimes. Where there's innovation, government has to adapt to properly regulate it. Would you rather the government do nothing?

I would agree that electronic traffic is protected under the phrase "person, papers, and effects."

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

Now if they deem that searches are reasonable on a case by case basis, then I say they have the authority. I still fear that individuals who have access to the right equipment to do these searches will individually abuse it.

[vy65]

I never suggested anything. And there are 8 categories of searches where no warrant is required. What are you fussing about?

[vy65]

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?

[Winehole23]

I was unaware -- but would be unsurprised to hear -- that 4th amendment does not attach to emails. Will you please direct us to the legislative or judicial product that establishes this as a fact?

[Wild Cobra]

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

I would say there isn't, but that it takes illegal actions to violate the privacy people think they have. My exception to this is that generally, the provider of the service says they may share their acquired information with others. This is common in most "terms of conditions." Still, this means the provider has the right to share such information at their option. Not by government demand.

[Wild Cobra]

Why would it be any less reasonable than expecting regular mail to be private?

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?

[Wild Cobra]

The abstraction was your conclusion that regulating email = totalitarianism. I never claimed that the 4th amendment is null and void; I said that it has to be adapted to new technologies. I also agree that there may be some validity to your argument that we shouldn't get rid of cons utional principles because of a new invention. So sticking to that idea - why do I have a reasonable expectation of privacy to my email?

At first I thought you meant otherwise too. Almost screwed up my first posting today to disagree with you. However, I agree.

[Marcus Bryant]

The abstraction was your conclusion that regulating email = totalitarianism. I never claimed that the 4th amendment is null and void; I said that it has to be adapted to new technologies. I also agree that there may be some validity to your argument that we shouldn't get rid of cons utional principles because of a new invention. So sticking to that idea - why do I have a reasonable expectation of privacy to my email?

No, I never claimed the government did not have a right to investigate crimes which might include accessing electronic records with a warrant. What I asked is why the 4th amendment standard which has been applied to successive changes in communications technology over the past two centuries has to be done away with to facilitate 'progress.' All you have done is confirm that it does not have to be, after initially claiming that it did.

You have a reasonable expectation to privacy as you would in any other communication.

[vy65]

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?

[Wild Cobra]

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?

Anytime you sign a contract with a bank, it has certain third party clauses, even specifying law enforcement.

[ElNono]

Of course there's expectation of privacy in email accounts. How did Palin had a case against the guy that hacked into her email account otherwise?

And I believe it's beyond the 4th amendment on personal privacy. How about doctor-patient confidentiality or even lawyer-client? And for some of us that work with the kind of tech that makes the snooping possible, it's way more than email addresses that get snooped.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course there's expectation of privacy in email accounts. How did Palin had a case against the guy that hacked into her email account otherwise?

And I believe it's beyond the 4th amendment on personal privacy. How about doctor-patient confidentiality or even lawyer-client? And for some of us that work with the kind of tech that makes the snooping possible, it's way more than email addresses that get snooped.

Yes, I think most of us agree the 4th amendment applies there, except as stated in your terms that you agree to, to have that account.

[ElNono]

It's alarming that laws have been eroding the 4th amendment protection on this. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act already made it so you only needed a subpoena instead of a warrant to access the data from an ISP. The Patriot Act pretty much vanished even that requirement.

There are still ways to protect your privacy if you want to when it comes to email. Using PGP is one of them. Obviously, this is until another law eventually forces you to hand over your encryption keys, like in the UK.

[Winehole23]

I'll take the pepsi challenge on this.

That's about right.

[ElNono]

As far as the OP, since he voted for the telecom amnesty before he became president, I kind of got the feeling where he was standing on this. So I'm disappointed, but not necessarily surprised.

[Wild Cobra]

There are still ways to protect your privacy if you want to when it comes to email. Using PGP is one of them. Obviously, this is until another law eventually forces you to hand over your encryption keys, like in the UK.

I will contend that doing such makes you even more curious to a government doing bulk data mining.

[Wild Cobra]

As far as the OP, since he voted for the telecom amnesty before he became president, I kind of got the feeling where he was standing on this. So I'm disappointed, but not necessarily surprised.

I'm not surprised at all. It's not always different on the other side of the fence.

[ElNono]

I will contend that doing such makes you even more curious to a government doing bulk data mining.

Curious? Is that the word now for su ious terrerist?

God forbid they don't know what I'm writing or what I think.

[Winehole23]

Zealously protecting one's privacy makes you a legitimate target of LE. What has this ing country come to?

[Marcus Bryant]

Zealously protecting one's privacy makes you a legitimate target of LE. What has this ing country come to?

The final perversion of liberty. Individual freedom is now deemed to come from adherence to collective state action. If you resist, then you are not exercising individual liberty, but rather are preventing it. Or, you're either with us or against us. That that putative libertarian is fellating this is not surprising.