Posted on 05/12/2006 5:57:25 AM PDT by Mikey_1962
YOU BLIND FOOL! How can you possibly think you're "free" when the NSA has access to your phone number?
Next thing you know, some government agency will have information that could be used to compile a list of all Presbyterians in America. How is this different from the Nazi Holocaust?
More like the American people as sheeple. So this is one of the dreaded MSM polls that we're to believe in....because it helps validate a republican administrations' orders.
Ok, now I'm clear, thanks ever so much. The founding fathers are rolling in their collective graves, but my government is keeping me safe and secure. They're STILL letting anybody in, but hey, safety is so precious.
God help us all.
I have an expectation of privacy when making a personal phone call. The government should have some specific reason to track my call if it is doing so. I understand why there is a lower burden of proof for obtaining a pen trace, but still that's a pen trace for a specific suspect, not a blanket pen trace on every citizen in America.
Really?? I have a pretty neat copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that I had framed up and hung in my office. I got them at a souvenir store in Chattanooga, and they look really nice in and old-time frame. But that's beside the point...
From time to time, I read the text of the articles and the amendments in the BOR. After 10 years, I guess I've probably read the documents a dozen times or so.
And you know, after all that, I have yet to find that elusive article, that single amendment, that one guaranteed "right to privacy" that so many claim resides somewhere in these documents.
So could you help me out and tell me exactly where I find this right to privacy? I would really like to know; and please be specific.
Thanks! L_L
Trouble is, phone records are small potatos compared to the tax returns we all just filed. From this they know my salary, where I live, work, bank (and can impute the average balance of interest bearing accounts), the stock and properties I sold, my kids and their ages, where I go to church (donations), the list goes on and on. Nobody raises a single question about all of that.
This poll got DUmmied bigtime since ABC reported it on Good Morning America today.
And what would you like me to do about it?
C'mon.
So could you help me out and tell me exactly where I find this right to privacy? I would really like to know; and please be specific.
Here:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized."
The Fourth Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures" was adopted as a protection against the widespread invasions of privacy experienced by American colonists at the hands of the British Government. So-called "writs of assistance" gave royal officers broad discretion to conduct searches of the homes of private citizens, primarily as a way of discovering violations of strict British customs laws. This practice led to a unique awareness among our Founding Fathers of the threat to individual liberty and privacy that is created by unchecked government search powers.
It can be argued that the Fourth Amendment applies directly to the actions of an over-reaching government that has apparently coerced a number of public-service communications providers into allowing unrestricted cataloging and data-mining of private records.
These actions could be compared to the government attempting to access medical records, gun registration records, banking records, or even library records.
I am not claiming to be a constitutional attorney or even an expert. I do know, from my perspective, that I don't want the government to have unrestricted access to personal private information.
It is necessary for a judge to issue a court order to access these types of records in private or criminal actions. The government needs to abide by the same laws.
As I said originally, It is my opinion.
"YOU BLIND FOOL! How can you possibly think you're "free" when the NSA has access to your phone number?
"Next thing you know, some government agency will have information that could be used to compile a list of all Presbyterians in America. How is this different from the Nazi Holocaust?"
Thanks for the best bit of satire I've read here in some time!
I'll let Chief Justice Roberts explain.
Specter: Judge Roberts, do you believe today that the right to privacy does exist in the Constitution?
Roberts: Senator, I do. The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.
It's protected by the Fourth Amendment which provides that the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, effects and papers is protected.
It's protected under the First Amendment dealing with prohibition on establishment of a religion and guarantee of free exercise.
It protects privacy in matters of conscience.
It was protected by the framers in areas that were of particular concern to them. It may not seem so significant today: the Third Amendment, protecting their homes against the quartering of troops.
And in addition, the court has -- it was a series of decisions going back 80 years -- has recognized that personal privacy is a component of the liberty protected by the due process clause.
The court has explained that the liberty protected is not limited to freedom from physical restraint and that it's protected not simply procedurally, but as a substantive matter as well.
And those decisions have sketched out, over a period of 80 years, certain aspects of privacy that are protected as part of the liberty in the due process clause under the Constitution.
John Roberts Confirmation Hearing ...
Now let's ask Judge Roberts, "is this an unlimited right?"
Declared -- semantics.
Public aware = Al Qaeda aware.
While I respect your opinion, since it is lucid and based on your best interpretation of the relevant clause, in this case I just can't reconcile how the records of a public utility can be considered private.
We'll leave the debate over the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment as guaranteeing a right to privacy for a later time!
Capitulate? I would insist that my government live up to their responsibility to defend our great nation, regardless of the name of the president.
I would expect them to put our enemies under surveillance.
Agreed. The Constitution is protecting that which is specifically mine. Phone records generated by my activity during the use of a publicly offered service don't belong to me; they belong to the entity providing the service.
Just like retailers who share my online purchasing habits in order to more effectively market to my tastes, they are dealing with the results of my activities. In no case am I under the illusion that my activities in the public marketplace are protected or private.
This leap of logic is akin to my son saying "You won't let me stay out until 2 am. Why do you want to kill me?"
Seriously? I just assumed Americans would love it.
I haven't been following this all that closely, as it doesn't bother me, but this is my current understanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.