NSA Phone Records

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
184

[quote]DPH wrote:

the government is forbidden from invading the privacy of my home, papers, personal effects, etc., without a warrent…[/quote]

IF this program exists, it isn’t invading any of the things you listed.

It MAY be looking at PHONE COMPANIES’ records. Those aren’t yours. You knew when you made the call that the phone company would make a record of it. You chose to make the call anyway. It is their records.

They aren’t looking through files on your computer or papers in your filing cabinent or digging through your underwear drawer. They MAY be looking at a company’s records.

185

[quote]doogie wrote:
DPH wrote:
the government is forbidden from invading the privacy of my home, papers, personal effects, etc., without a warrent…

IF this program exists, it isn’t invading any of the things you listed.

It MAY be looking at PHONE COMPANIES’ records. Those aren’t yours. You knew when you made the call that the phone company would make a record of it. You chose to make the call anyway. It is their records.

They aren’t looking through files on your computer or papers in your filing cabinent or digging through your underwear drawer. They MAY be looking at a company’s records.
[/quote]

I’m not disputing that phone records are the property of the phone companies…

I’m disputing BostonBarrister’s statement that the Constitution doesn’t have an inherent “right to privacy”…

I should have been more clear, sorry…

…

added…

the Amendment IV implies the right to privacy for U.S. citizens under certain conditions…

for example, the government does not have the right to place surveillance cameras in my house to monitor what I’m up to. why? because the fourth amendment implies that I have a ‘right to privacy’ in my own home…

186

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060521/EDIT03/605210310/1090/EDIT

187

I guess we know that BB is a Kool-Aid drinking Bushite on the sinking ship.

188

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
So does this program even exist?

The phone companies are all denying it.

The former head of the NSA says it would be useless and he doubts it exists.

Is this just another incident of media irresponibility or is there any truth at all?[/quote]

A wistle blower and ex-employee of AT&T has the goods.

189

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
So does this program even exist?

The phone companies are all denying it.

The former head of the NSA says it would be useless and he doubts it exists.

Is this just another incident of media irresponibility or is there any truth at all?

A wistle blower and ex-employee of AT&T has the goods.

[/quote]

Might be real or might be a couple of bitter people.

We shall see.

190

[quote]
doogie wrote:
DPH wrote:
the government is forbidden from invading the privacy of my home, papers, personal effects, etc., without a warrent…

IF this program exists, it isn’t invading any of the things you listed.

It MAY be looking at PHONE COMPANIES’ records. Those aren’t yours. You knew when you made the call that the phone company would make a record of it. You chose to make the call anyway. It is their records.

They aren’t looking through files on your computer or papers in your filing cabinent or digging through your underwear drawer. They MAY be looking at a company’s records.

DPH wrote:
I’m not disputing that phone records are the property of the phone companies…

I’m disputing BostonBarrister’s statement that the Constitution doesn’t have an inherent “right to privacy”…

I should have been more clear, sorry…

…

added…

the Amendment IV implies the right to privacy for U.S. citizens under certain conditions…

for example, the government does not have the right to place surveillance cameras in my house to monitor what I’m up to. why? because the fourth amendment implies that I have a ‘right to privacy’ in my own home…[/quote]

Perhaps my statement should have been more clear in that it’s not a stand-alone right to privacy. There are certain limitations on what the government can do in terms of searching and seizing, but they are quite specific – and mainly geographic, in that the strongest of the protections center on your house.

There is not some general right to privacy in things that you put in public view – and that means things you put outside your house. In fact, there’s not even a strong protection against things inside your house, if they’re visible from outside your house.

Here are a few things the government can do without a warrant, fully consistent with the 4th Amendment:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen’s home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen’s car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car ? regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search ? including a strip search ? at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

ADDENDUM:

Note, this decision just came down today:

From an AP description:

Justice Roberts said in Monday’s ruling that officers did everything right when they arrived about 3 a.m. after getting a complaint about a loud party. They saw juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. After seeing the scuffle through a back window, an officer opened a screen door and tried to announce the arrival of police. “When nobody heard him, he stepped into the kitchen and announced himself again. Only then did the tumult subside,” Roberts wrote. He said the officers “were free to enter; it would serve no purpose to require them to stand dumbly at the door awaiting a response while those within brawled on, oblivious to their presence.” (Brigham City v. Stuart, 05-502)

Note that the cops could peek in the windows of the house and it wasn’t problematic.

To be sure, there are certain statutory restrictions on how the government can obtain information, but those statutes should serve as clue number one that there isn’t an independent Constitutional restriction.

191

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
I guess we know that BB is a Kool-Aid drinking Bushite on the sinking ship.[/quote]

With each post you make it ever clearer that either you don’t even understand the points or you can’t be bothered to read the posts so as to understand the argument.

192

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

doogie wrote:
DPH wrote:
the government is forbidden from invading the privacy of my home, papers, personal effects, etc., without a warrent…

IF this program exists, it isn’t invading any of the things you listed.

It MAY be looking at PHONE COMPANIES’ records. Those aren’t yours. You knew when you made the call that the phone company would make a record of it. You chose to make the call anyway. It is their records.

They aren’t looking through files on your computer or papers in your filing cabinent or digging through your underwear drawer. They MAY be looking at a company’s records.

DPH wrote:
I’m not disputing that phone records are the property of the phone companies…

I’m disputing BostonBarrister’s statement that the Constitution doesn’t have an inherent “right to privacy”…

I should have been more clear, sorry…

…

added…

the Amendment IV implies the right to privacy for U.S. citizens under certain conditions…

for example, the government does not have the right to place surveillance cameras in my house to monitor what I’m up to. why? because the fourth amendment implies that I have a ‘right to privacy’ in my own home…

Perhaps my statement should have been more clear in that it’s not a stand-alone right to privacy. There are certain limitations on what the government can do in terms of searching and seizing, but they are quite specific – and mainly geographic, in that the strongest of the protections center on your house.

There is not some general right to privacy in things that you put in public view – and that means things you put outside your house. In fact, there’s not even a strong protection against things inside your house, if they’re visible from outside your house.

Here are a few things the government can do without a warrant, fully consistent with the 4th Amendment:

Detain American citizens for investigative purposes without a warrant;

Arrest American citizens, based on probable cause, without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the person of an American citizen who has been detained, with or without a warrant;

Conduct a warrantless search of the home of an American citizen in order to secure the premises while a warrant is being obtained;

Conduct a warrantless search of, and seize, items belonging to American citizens that are displayed in plain view and that are obviously criminal or dangerous in nature;

Conduct a warrantless search of anything belonging to an American citizen under exigent circumstances if considerations of public safety make obtaining a warrant impractical;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen’s home and belongings if another person, who has apparent authority over the premises, consents;

Conduct a warrantless search of an American citizen’s car anytime there is probable cause to believe it contains contraband or any evidence of a crime;

Conduct a warrantless search of any closed container inside the car of an American citizen if there is probable cause to search the car ? regardless of whether there is probable cause to search the container itself;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property apparently abandoned by an American citizen;

Conduct a warrantless search of any property of an American citizen that has lawfully been seized in order to create an inventory and protect police from potential hazards or civil claims;

Conduct a warrantless search ? including a strip search ? at the border of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search at the border of the baggage and other property of any American citizen entering or leaving the United States;

Conduct a warrantless search of any American citizen seeking to enter a public building;

Conduct a warrantless search of random Americans at police checkpoints established for public-safety purposes (such as to detect and discourage drunk driving);

Conduct warrantless monitoring of common areas frequented by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens and their vessels on the high seas;

Conduct warrantless monitoring of any telephone call or conversation of an American citizen as long as one participant in the conversation has consented to the monitoring;

Conduct warrantless searches of junkyards maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of docks maintained by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of bars or nightclubs owned by American citizens to police underage drinking;

Conduct warrantless searches of auto-repair shops operated by American citizens;

Conduct warrantless searches of the books of American gem dealers in order to discourage traffic in stolen goods;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens working in government, emergency services, the transportation industry, and nuclear plants;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school officials;

Conduct warrantless drug screening of American citizens who are school students;

Conduct warrantless searches of American citizens who are on bail, probation or parole.

ADDENDUM:

Note, this decision just came down today:

From an AP description:

Justice Roberts said in Monday’s ruling that officers did everything right when they arrived about 3 a.m. after getting a complaint about a loud party. They saw juveniles drinking beer in the backyard. After seeing the scuffle through a back window, an officer opened a screen door and tried to announce the arrival of police. “When nobody heard him, he stepped into the kitchen and announced himself again. Only then did the tumult subside,” Roberts wrote. He said the officers “were free to enter; it would serve no purpose to require them to stand dumbly at the door awaiting a response while those within brawled on, oblivious to their presence.” (Brigham City v. Stuart, 05-502)

Note that the cops could peek in the windows of the house and it wasn’t problematic.

To be sure, there are certain statutory restrictions on how the government can obtain information, but those statutes should serve as clue number one that there isn’t an independent Constitutional restriction.[/quote]

That’s fucked up.

193

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
That’s fucked up.
[/quote]

Sepukku, American’s are free to do whatever the U.S. government allows us to do…

194

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
I guess we know that BB is a Kool-Aid drinking Bushite on the sinking ship.

With each post you make it ever clearer that either you don’t even understand the points or you can’t be bothered to read the posts so as to understand the argument.[/quote]

You are starting to sound like a liberal democrat which means you are on the losing end.

Cheers!

195

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
I guess we know that BB is a Kool-Aid drinking Bushite on the sinking ship.

With each post you make it ever clearer that either you don’t even understand the points or you can’t be bothered to read the posts so as to understand the argument.

You are starting to sound like a liberal democrat which means you are on the losing end.

Cheers!

[/quote]

Have you made an actual point on this entire thread?

196

[quote]
Sepukku wrote:
That’s fucked up.

DPH wrote:
Sepukku, American’s are free to do whatever the U.S. government allows us to do…[/quote]

Unfortunately, with the expansion of federal power in the 20th century, particularly with the New Deal and the Warren Court precedents related to Congress’ Commerce-Clause authority, that’s entirely far too close to the truth.

One of the main reasons the Constitution didn’t have a laundry list of specific individual protections was that the government wasn’t originally understood to have the power to do a lot w/r/t regulating your everyday life or messing with your property – not anymore (Though to be fair, there weren’t a whole lot of restrictions on what the state governments could do pursuant to their general police powers – just look at what they used to do w/r/t quarantines and eminent domain, for example).

197

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Unfortunately, with the expansion of federal power in the 20th century, particularly with the New Deal and the Warren Court precedents related to Congress’ Commerce-Clause authority, that’s entirely far too close to the truth.
[/quote]

yep…

a good adjective to use before ‘expansion’ would have been colossal…

198

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
I guess we know that BB is a Kool-Aid drinking Bushite on the sinking ship.

With each post you make it ever clearer that either you don’t even understand the points or you can’t be bothered to read the posts so as to understand the argument.

You are starting to sound like a liberal democrat which means you are on the losing end.

Cheers!

Have you made an actual point on this entire thread?[/quote]

If your explaining your losing.

*Either you can’t grasp it or you don’t want to…which is it?

199

[quote]DPH wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
That’s fucked up.

Sepukku, American’s are free to do whatever the U.S. government allows us to do…[/quote]

Yes, and I’m afraid Britain and the rest of Eurpope is being lead down a similair path…

In fact, I used to be all for the E.U. because I fancied the idea of the economical insentive it created for surrounding countries to adhere to a common humanitarian constitution which would prevent those countries from waging wars on eachother (especially important in the balkans and in Israel and Palestine, to which the E.U. had hoped to expand within 15 years…)

However, now I’m beginning to believe that this kind of consolidation of economical and political power, masked behind humanitarian beliefs, isn’t what it’s made out to be. (The U.N…)

BostonBarrister: You appear to know the law very well. What do you make of this situation? Doesn’t it seem as though we should be opposing this sort of totalitarian rule? If so, what exactly can average people do in order to get their voices heard and possibly affect some sort of change in reducing federal power?

Thanks.

200

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

If your explaining your losing.

*Either you can’t grasp it or you don’t want to…which is it?[/quote]

Is that because you can’t understand the explanations, so it’s like the adults in Charlie Brown going “Wah wah wah”?

If you don’t sound like you’re getting it, you’ll engender explanations…

201

[quote]Sepukku wrote:

BostonBarrister: You appear to know the law very well. What do you make of this situation? Doesn’t it seem as though we should be opposing this sort of totalitarian rule? If so, what exactly can average people do in order to get their voices heard and possibly affect some sort of change in reducing federal power?

Thanks.[/quote]

Unfortunately, not much – that is, unless you can both publicize what’s going on and get a majority of voters to care. That’s a tall order – a lot of people will willingly swap what libertarians and classical liberals deem to be important individual rights in exchange for a small measure of economic security, or to empower the goverment to “fix” a perceived harm (which is what happened during the New Deal and the civil rights cases, respectively).

In Europe, that might not even be enough – see what’s happened with the EU Constitution being rammed down the throats of various countries after repeated rejections, as happened in Ireland and may happen in the Netherlands.

What we probably cannot do is dismantle the various prongs of government that have sprung up in the last 100 years – the IRS, executive agencies, etc. Perhaps the only way to really pare things back is to come up with a series of Amendments to the Constitution (or in the EU’s case, amendments to the draft constitution) that address individual rights and prohibit the government from taking certain actions altogether w/r/t individuals. Kind of a 2nd Bill of Rights movement, if you will.

Short of that, you’re fighting against a 100 year tide of consolidation of power in the government’s hands, which happened in piecemeal fashion – so it would be extremely hard to tackle the problem by tackling the expanding government. Better at this stage, in my opinion, to tackle the problem by vesting rights in individuals.

202

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:

If your explaining your losing.

*Either you can’t grasp it or you don’t want to…which is it?

Is that because you can’t understand the explanations, so it’s like the adults in Charlie Brown going “Wah wah wah”?

If you don’t sound like you’re getting it, you’ll engender explanations…[/quote]

Americans don’t care about the legalese of wrapping the NSAs activities in the 4th Amendment.

That IS the only point.

203

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

Americans don’t care about the legalese of wrapping the NSAs activities in the 4th Amendment.

That IS the only point.[/quote]

The majority doesn’t seem to mind what they’re doing at all, actually.

But given the point was about Constitutional rights on a directed thread and not a leaflet handed out to Americans at large, your only point seems off topic.