General Discussion

octoberlib

(14,971 posts)

56. Interesting and informative thread. Thanks for the info, everybody! nt

Reply to Orrex (Original post)

Tue Jun 11, 2013, 06:30 PM

Jun 2013

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