General Discussion

cali

(114,904 posts)

111. follow your own advice- and more, honeypie.

Reply to gholtron (Reply #104)

Sat Jun 29, 2013, 02:55 PM

Jun 2013

and if you think the likes of YOU will ever silence me, sweetums, you have another thing coming. hard.

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