General Discussion

intaglio

(8,170 posts)

70. Then do not look forward to the USPS delivering any of your mail n/t

Reply to boston bean (Reply #68)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 12:32 PM

Jun 2013

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

121 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The 4th amendment [View all] gholtron Jun 2013 OP

If you can't spell the name of your target, "Glen" (sic) Greenwald, why should we take your leveymg Jun 2013 #1

The short answer is gholtron Jun 2013 #4

This is probably the best summary of the technologies and case law (to 2004) out there: leveymg Jun 2013 #14

And if you choose to respond with only an ad hom intaglio Jun 2013 #7

1. Yes Scuba Jun 2013 #2

Again gholtron Jun 2013 #5

You forgot the "secure in papers, and effects" part. 4th Amend. isn't just houses. leveymg Jun 2013 #22

Has it been proven that the government read any emails without warrants? gholtron Jun 2013 #27

That was established by several NSA whistleblowers and lawsuits. Read this leveymg Jun 2013 #41

They dont have to come into your place of dwelling to get the info they want davidn3600 Jun 2013 #32

Going Around is not the same is violating gholtron Jun 2013 #46

The phone company doesn't share that info with the government without a warrant davidn3600 Jun 2013 #61

Yes, they did. They entered electronically. Scuba Jun 2013 #40

You confuse published (ie public) information intaglio Jun 2013 #9

No, I'm not confused. Scuba Jun 2013 #91

Did you actually read what you wrote? intaglio Jun 2013 #96

It's not the looking, it's intent and purpose of the looking, and the concluding. Scuba Jun 2013 #106

Ok, so the intent of the USPS looking at an envelope is manyfold intaglio Jun 2013 #115

Question: Who owns your phone records? baldguy Jun 2013 #11

The phone co does. boston bean Jun 2013 #15

If the courts say metadata isn't priviledged (& they have) phone co.s certainly do have the right. baldguy Jun 2013 #25

They have placed a broad sweeping warrant that collects my info or your info. boston bean Jun 2013 #29

Do I have to repeat myself? You've already agreed that your metadata doesn't belong to you. baldguy Jun 2013 #98

It doesn't belong to the govt either. Wtf????? boston bean Jun 2013 #100

And I get called a fascist & a goose-stepping authoritarian when I question baldguy Jun 2013 #105

It's like we're the Israelites enslaved in Egypt baldguy Jun 2013 #119

I'm not a fan of Snowden or Greenwald and I have no desire to bash Democrats. Scuba Jun 2013 #42

I was simply asking questions gholtron Jun 2013 #52

"... fans of Snowden & Greenwald ...can't be bothered ... as long as they can bash Democrats ..." Scuba Jun 2013 #55

So I can't address Fans of Snowden and Greenwald to ask questions? gholtron Jun 2013 #58

I you're OK with painting DUrs critical of Snowden & Green as fascists, Stalinists, authoritarians, baldguy Jun 2013 #90

I'm sorry, can you please link me to the post where I did any such thing? Scuba Jun 2013 #92

There's more going on than just criticism of the NSA. baldguy Jun 2013 #107

You accused me personally of supporting slander with fascist and other labels. Back it up. Scuba Jun 2013 #109

As if ignoring the full range of issues isn't dismissive.... baldguy Jun 2013 #113

I remember when "terrorism" used to be a concept burnodo Jun 2013 #3

No, the case law as it now stands allows this intaglio Jun 2013 #12

According to you burnodo Jun 2013 #19

Not according to Smith v Maryland intaglio Jun 2013 #30

Now it's an algorithm. eom leveymg Jun 2013 #23

Fans of Greenwald and Snowden hate the govt in all it's forms. baldguy Jun 2013 #6

Oh really? 99Forever Jun 2013 #13

You just did a 180 and crashed and burned there. Privatization of nat'l security is offensive. leveymg Jun 2013 #26

Another pathetic dismissal of those who would challenge NSA and private corporation spying. Scuba Jun 2013 #44

Could you be more full of shit? whatchamacallit Jun 2013 #57

"and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" boston bean Jun 2013 #8

But they argue that the searches aren't "unreasonable". NutmegYankee Jun 2013 #10

What do you think is illegally searched? intaglio Jun 2013 #16

Please read carefully. boston bean Jun 2013 #21

Please read carefully - the data collected is not private. n/t intaglio Jun 2013 #35

It isn't. So, all this time the govt hasn't needed any probable cause boston bean Jun 2013 #38

You are conflating public information with private intaglio Jun 2013 #48

You are not taking into consideration of probable cause. boston bean Jun 2013 #49

Do the authorities need probable cause to look at an envelope? intaglio Jun 2013 #65

I believe they need probable cause to boston bean Jun 2013 #68

Then do not look forward to the USPS delivering any of your mail n/t intaglio Jun 2013 #70

EXACTLY. gholtron Jun 2013 #24

If the government went to everyone's place of dwelling gholtron Jun 2013 #18

Does a letter leave your house, gholtron? Does the 4th Amend not apply to "letters, and effects"? leveymg Jun 2013 #43

When I send a letter, gholtron Jun 2013 #47

The pre-2008 FAA Terrorist Surveillance Program (The Program) swept up everything, leveymg Jun 2013 #53

Good response gholtron Jun 2013 #56

Let me make a correction gholtron Jun 2013 #59

What is the probable cause for these warrants that give authority boston bean Jun 2013 #64

The probable Cause is gholtron Jun 2013 #69

They have no probably cause to collect my data. boston bean Jun 2013 #73

Your data is wrapped up in a file. gholtron Jun 2013 #78

You are being obtuse. boston bean Jun 2013 #80

No. The profile is based in all gov't databanks. Those other databanks contain illegally obtained leveymg Jun 2013 #84

No. Binney and Drake say that content was also being intercepted and stored in bulk. That's illegal leveymg Jun 2013 #79

What are they collecting and storing it for? boston bean Jun 2013 #54

Read The pre-2008 FAA Terrorist Surveillance Program (The Program) swept up everything, gholtron Jun 2013 #63

Not exactly the response I was looking for, if you gave it have a second and thought about boston bean Jun 2013 #67

Prove to me that meta data is subject to the 4th amendment? gholtron Jun 2013 #74

Prove to me it's not. boston bean Jun 2013 #76

Here you go gholtron Jun 2013 #83

Is a warrant needed for the govt to collect this info? boston bean Jun 2013 #86

Strawman. LWolf Jun 2013 #17

You're missing the point. gholtron Jun 2013 #20

You Are Clearly Parsing The Amendment To Make An Argument Which Justifies Government Surveillance cantbeserious Jun 2013 #28

Yes I am. gholtron Jun 2013 #34

That You Justify The Wanton Desecration Of The 4th Amendment Is Telling - We Know Where You Stand cantbeserious Jun 2013 #36

No. LWolf Jun 2013 #31

And why is published information, private? intaglio Jun 2013 #37

"Published." LWolf Jun 2013 #45

I didn't know, but according to intaglio boston bean Jun 2013 #51

I think that the law hasn't kept up well with LWolf Jun 2013 #95

Yes, you have published intaglio Jun 2013 #62

Of course there is a difference. LWolf Jun 2013 #94

Then the Ex Mayor of Detroit gholtron Jun 2013 #39

Are you talking about pre or post-2010 email, pre-2008 FAA, pre-2006 Patriot reauthorization or leveymg Jun 2013 #33

In the modern day and age... ljm2002 Jun 2013 #50

The answer to the first four questions are yes. former9thward Jun 2013 #60

I'm sorry about what happened to you gholtron Jun 2013 #66

Not mine - everyone's. former9thward Jun 2013 #71

Yes G_j Jun 2013 #72

People Who Urge Calm Over NSA Spying Make Me Nervous G_j Jun 2013 #75

If I didn't trust our Government gholtron Jun 2013 #93

LoL G_j Jun 2013 #116

Oh FFS. Apophis Jun 2013 #77

Since you address a broad DU audience I will respond in the same context. GoneFishin Jun 2013 #81

Then I guess we agree to disagree about the interpretation of the 4th amendment. gholtron Jun 2013 #89

Fair enough. GoneFishin Jun 2013 #97

So Bush DID NOT break the law? Pholus Jun 2013 #82

Yes He did and should be proscuted gholtron Jun 2013 #87

So why wasn't he prosecuted again? nt Pholus Jun 2013 #120

Crickets? Pholus Jul 2013 #121

Congress criminalized certain activities when it adopted 18 USC 2511. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2013 #85

Are the answers to your questions available in the public domain? Democracyinkind Jun 2013 #88

oh for the love of reason. Your questions have to be some of the most foolish questions cali Jun 2013 #99

Wow an American Citizen can't ask questions without being called names. gholtron Jun 2013 #101

care to point out the names I called the OP? cali Jun 2013 #103

Cali gholtron Jun 2013 #104

follow your own advice- and more, honeypie. cali Jun 2013 #111

Not a "fan," but will answer anyway. Deep13 Jun 2013 #102

Then, please use your limitations to explain Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #108

Wire tapping warrant means gholtron Jun 2013 #110

Not what I asked. Ms. Toad Jun 2013 #112

Keep in mind that the Constitution was written in the late 18th Centry gholtron Jun 2013 #117

people who support the security state are sad examples of the quiescent cali Jun 2013 #114

Yep, and the unquiescent make them ve-ry uncomfortable marions ghost Jun 2013 #118