Story Comments
Posted by: jeffery1 1 year, 5 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
jeffery11 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Fourth Amendment is explicit enough to cover technologies that did not exist and do not currently exist. Reread the Fourth amendment and understand that wiretapping is a search and seizure because it is equivalent of what was private conversation and correspondence. A warrant is required.
Of course, interpretation is key, with Republicans arguing that government suspicion is required as "probable cause" and Democrats arguing that they don't want to look weak and so will ignore the concept that underlies the very concept of natural rights.
The ONLY reason that an amendment would be needed to explicitly cover any given technology is that the right-wing world-view is now predominant. This means that the constitution is essentially meaningless and the U.S. as we conceive it no longer exists. Maybe it never did.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. The authoritarian world view is predominant. Once more, just because it is authoritarian does not make it right wing. A fine example of a right wing philosophy that is not authoritarian is the Libertarian Party of the US. Ron Paul was also extreme right wing. Was he an authoritarian?
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think we are each using slightly different terminology but saying the same thing. There is a social right which I think should be authoritarianism and a social "left" which is libertarianism. At the same time we have a fiscal right, which is the free market, and a fiscal left which is more of a collectivist economy.
Oh well. It happens. Essentially you are speaking of the social right, which I would agree with (except on a few issues, gun control being one of them, where the social left comes off more authoritarian, by and large it fits though). I was speaking of the fiscal right. Whom, though I disagree with, I respect.
Reply
-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Reread the Fourth amendment and understand that wiretapping is a search and seizure because it is equivalent of what was private conversation and correspondence."
Reread the Fourth and understand that no such equivalence is implied nor present. Wiretapping is neither search nor seizure. There is nothing physically being taken from the wiretappee, nor are they in any way inconvenienced by the act of wiretapping.
I agree with Mdiar's comment below, that the government does not have the authority to conduct wiretaps nor demand them of telecoms because they have not been granted that power (10th Amendment). However, that same Amendment states that the telecoms DO have the right to record such conversations, and if they want to provide that info to the government, it's in THEIR power.
Also as Mdiar pointed out below, the 10th is one of the most widely-ignored Amendments around. The federal government goes on and on imagining (and using) powers not granted to it by the constitution.
Reply -
-
100%
willottica1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Many people cite the Fourth as guaranteeing a right to privacy. But I've read and re-read it, and cannot see where it says that.
The following article uses the "right to privacy" argument for Fourth Amendment protection of email, but as most ISPs have privacy policies that explicitly states that content may be monitored, there is NO reasonable assumption of privacy. Unless you specifically order a secure telephone line from the government, I don't see a reasonlable assumption there, either. After all, as part of the evolution of the telephone, there were "party lines" shared by many people, any of whom could listen in.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/04/4th-amendment_email_privacy/page3.htmlThe 10th Amendment is what prevents the government from having the power to listen in, and it would also protect us from the government from having the power to compel telecoms to provide phone or email records. (The fourth may also protect the TELECOMS from this) But neither the Fourth nor the Tenth protects you from TELECOMS or ISPs willingly handing over the info.
Reply
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (3)
joey-evans
globalwarmer
scott4261People Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.