General Discussion

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)

31. Exactly right...

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 10:28 AM

Jun 2013

they are storing information on the entire population, a feat not even equaled by the East German Stasi, to hold to later incriminate anyone they choose to prosecute. Don't you remember when the FBI started building files on people like Martin Luther King and other activists? These people were in fact heroes, but because they opposed the government, the government built files without reasonable cause to be used later IF they could find the slightest excuse. Look at Snowden himself-I've formed no opinion but the media seems damn well ready to lynch him based on the slightest of past accusations. It's like the true incarnation of your high school principals threat to enter something on your "permanent record". Except these fucking people mean it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

58 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can someone confirm for me that the 4th Amendment even applies? [View all] Orrex Jun 2013 OP

No, it does not apply. nt. graham4anything Jun 2013 #1

Big data in small places. randome Jun 2013 #2

And if your security cameras lead to a third party security firm, can they give your video feed dkf Jun 2013 #3

Depends on your agreement with the security firm, I should think. Orrex Jun 2013 #8

It's the private loophole for government doing things it's prohibited from doing Paulie Jun 2013 #4

I don't know that private/public is what matters: I'm asking someone else to route my call Recursion Jun 2013 #6

It belongs to them Paulie Jun 2013 #22

As a systems administrator I've always thought routing data belonged to me, not the user Recursion Jun 2013 #5

I'm glad that you brought that up. Orrex Jun 2013 #11

That actually has some pretty big implications if it's the users': we make retain/delete decisions Recursion Jun 2013 #12

+1 uponit7771 Jun 2013 #20

It applies to information pipoman Jun 2013 #7

Depends on the contract, I should think Orrex Jun 2013 #17

As far as I know, yes. Laelth Jun 2013 #9

In the old days you might go into an office and pay your phone bill treestar Jun 2013 #15

Verizon has no right to record your phone calls, no matter what contract they have you sign. reformist2 Jun 2013 #10

Even if you sign a contract allowing them to record your calls? Orrex Jun 2013 #13

Verizon is a business, it has no economic motive to record phone calls treestar Jun 2013 #16

There are laws that specifically govern what common carriers can/cannot do with respect to privacy FarCenter Jun 2013 #36

The small print of HIPPA might be interesting to look at treestar Jun 2013 #55

That's a good question, it is a lot more complex than people are making it out to be treestar Jun 2013 #14

I'll approach it from the "signer's intent" angle.... catnhatnh Jun 2013 #18

It all hinges on one part of that Amendment. MineralMan Jun 2013 #19

Terrific & thorough answer. Thanks! Orrex Jun 2013 #21

Thanks for the opportunity. I've been thinking about MineralMan Jun 2013 #23

My objection would be this... catnhatnh Jun 2013 #24

According to what has been stated, MineralMan Jun 2013 #25

Exactly right... catnhatnh Jun 2013 #31

No. It hinges on "probably cause". Bonobo Jun 2013 #27

Consider also someone posting about committing suicide. randome Jun 2013 #29

Yes. That's another example, and has saved lives. MineralMan Jun 2013 #32

Of course it does. Bonobo Jun 2013 #26

How does data owned by a telecom provider qualify as my personal effects and papers? Orrex Jun 2013 #41

Well... Bonobo Jun 2013 #45

I agree that the subject matter of the correspondence is confidential Orrex Jun 2013 #47

Smith vs Maryland says no. People can disagree of course. BenzoDia Jun 2013 #28

Simple answer, yes. Savannahmann Jun 2013 #30

What if the fed simply asks for the data and the company provides it? Orrex Jun 2013 #35

Then I will make the same proposal that I made earlier to another thread Savannahmann Jun 2013 #38

As I understand it ... there is a distniction between the CONTENT and JoePhilly Jun 2013 #33

That's like saying the police can open any fed ex package they like. nt Demo_Chris Jun 2013 #34

Forgive me, but I don't think that it's the same thing at all. Orrex Jun 2013 #37

I was responding to those who claim... Demo_Chris Jun 2013 #39

Ah--I see. Orrex Jun 2013 #40

Even this is constitutionally dubious -- and we both know this is not the limits they are setting. Demo_Chris Jun 2013 #51

No, its not Constitutionally dubious. All existing case law says it is Constitutional stevenleser Jun 2013 #53

I continue to disagree with that characterization Orrex Jun 2013 #54

The police can't. But the Feds can if they have a FISA warrant for it. nt stevenleser Jun 2013 #43

The change is that they now claim a single nonspecific warrant covers all... Demo_Chris Jun 2013 #50

No, you are wrong on all counts. Every appeals court decision on the subject, and there are many stevenleser Jun 2013 #52

Key word there Steve: FOREIGN Demo_Chris Jun 2013 #57

The President has the absolute right to surveillance in national security situations/purposes stevenleser Jun 2013 #42

Solid info. Thanks! Orrex Jun 2013 #44

Great information treestar Jun 2013 #49

It depends Orrex. The 4th amendment doesn't apply outside the bounds of msanthrope Jun 2013 #46

That's a solid summation of the issue. Orrex Jun 2013 #48

Interesting and informative thread. Thanks for the info, everybody! nt octoberlib Jun 2013 #56

Verizon isn't the government. GeorgeGist Jun 2013 #58