[ABC]Government Illegally Intercepting ALL Internet Traffic

A lot of Israelis are Arabs, you know. And if you ask most Israelis, the best places to buy it are at Abu Adam or Abu Hasan.

 

Without privacy, your right to free speech and free thought is encumbered.

The thought of eyes creeping behind my back searching for everything I will do wrong, without the presumption of innocence, is enough to convince me that this goes everything against the founding principles of our nation.

 

i know, i've eaten hummus and falafel in Jericho, along with roast lamb, and it was some of the best food i've ever had, and the people were wonderful.

 

Hey basso, what's your position on torture?

(Since you seem to be having trouble finding the words, feel free to plagiarize like you often do.)

 

I'm talking out of line so excuse me,...but My position is that it doesn't matter if torture saves lives if infringement is going against the constitution,...just like I don't care if gun control saves lives if infringement is going against the constitution...

 

Good for you, ROX. I agree completely.

basso?

Hey, basso...

Oh, damn. I guess he went poof again.

 

Not really. The right to free speech is meaningless in private, no one knows what you are saying. The government could have the most oppressive speech laws in the history of mankind, but if you spoke under the protection of absolute privacy, nothing could be done about it. Free speech is all about what is said in public, usually in print or an audio or video broadcast, but sometimes just speaking in front of a crowd as well. Until the government comes out with some sort of mind reading device, I don't think you have to be worried about the right to free thought, although that is not guaranteed anywhere in the constitution either (probably because as far as the founders knew, and we know today, there is no way to infringe on a right to free thought, guaranteeing it would be more ridiculous that guaranteeing a right to have a favorite color.

Presumption of innocence is an entirely separate concept from a right to privacy. The presumption of innocence is a foundational principle of our criminal judicial process, whereby there is a burden to prove someone guilty before they can be convicted of a crime. It has absolutely nothing to do with privacy.

Anyway, being Invisible and all, what difference would creeping eyes make to you?

Anyone with a halfway decent education in computer programming and pattern recognition.

Blah, blah, NAZIs, blah blah blah. Come on Deck, really?

 

reading your posts= torture. and i'm against that.

 

Cute. What's your thinking on torture? You know, the administration-approved government-sponsored kind?

If you can't answer that, perhaps you can tell us what it feels like to lose your humanity a little at a time? Or perhaps you can tell us how your principles have morphed to a form recognizable only in the support of a particular rogue administration?

Really, I'd settle for anything at this point.

 

All decent human beings are Republicans.

1. Favors the wealthy and big corporations at the expense of the middle class and poor
2. Against abortion yet opposed to funding for children born into poverty
3. Against homosexuals but doesn't "hate" them
4. Preaches family values but supports guns, tobacco, military campaigns
5. Opposed to environmental issues and believes Global Warming is a myth
6. Favors "liberating" countries by forcing our ideology on them
7. Opposed to civil rights

 

Yeah, I almost didn't post that, SM, because I knew what the reaction would be. The problem I see is that ignoring "State" restrictions on personal freedom "for the greater good" was rationalized out the kazoo by the NSP and Mr. Moustache. A majority of Germans bought into it "for the greater good." Look what that got them. I just don't think the comparison is out of line. I understand your reaction, though.



D&D. Attempt Civility!

Impeach Bush.

 

Nice post, ROX!



D&D. Attempt Civility!

Impeach Bush.

 

by the way SM did you rely on anything but an 8th grade us history class to determine what is in the constitution?

i mean maybe you could read a wiki on it and see that sometimes we understand what the constitution says by reading what the courts have said.

sorry if that is a bit too nuanced for your liking.

good thing i have nothing to hide.

 

The courts INTERPRET the constitution. The constitution itself says nothing about privacy. There have been supreme court justices that have invented a right to privacy by massaging the words of the constitution, but that doesn't mean they have any more insight into what the founders meant than you or I. Furthermore, the founders were not some omniscient beings that were incapable of making mistakes (unless you want to go back to counting black people as property and 3/5s of a person for the purposes of calculating representation). You can continue thinking that a bunch of guys 200+ years ago and some judges are smarter than everyone else if you want, but that doesn't make it right.

Running emails through a computer to see if they have words like jihad or hijacking is quite a bit different than rounding up Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals, and then eliminating as many as possible. I don't even care if they don't do it. I am not deathly afraid of terrorists and I think the odds of them preventing attacks with this system is not very good. I just am not concerned if they do use the system. It has nothing to do with sacrificing freedoms for the greater good (at least for me) and more to do with not thinking this is a big deal and not caring if they do it or not. Apathy certainly existed in 1930's Germany, but it was hardly unique to them.

 

Oh give me a god damned break. The 4th amendment explicitly outlaws unreasonable SEARCHES and seizures without due process.

These anti-intellectual arguments about a lack of privacy protections are ridiculous. Using that logic, the federal government doesn't have the power to search internet communications because all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are granted to the states as per the 10th amendment. Also your definition about house, papers etc.. (where the hell is that definition) The guarantee is against unreasonable searches and seizures and the second sentence of the 4th amendment says "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."

Also, supreme court precedents matter whether you like them or not. They are the functional equivalent of law. So yes Griswold v Connecticut which created a right to privacy still has the effect of law. There is a right to privacy whether you want to believe it or not because the alternative is anarchy. Like I said, using your logic, federal laws don't trump state laws, school segregation is still legitimate since the constitution doesn't ban that, and the police have the right to search your property for ANY reason since the exclusionary rule is irrelevant.

You can't cherry-pick when the court matters. Even if you disagree with the court, it still matters. So there is privacy guarantees, there are guarantees against these types of searches and it is illegal. Quit spinning this.

 

It says papers. Clearly the founding fathers intended emails to be fair game for government snoops.

 

you contradict yourself. because the founders were not all knowing we must interpret the constitution with a grasp of reality. since privacy concerns are paramount (UN's declaration of human rights...) you making a huge deal about how this isn't in the constitution is absurd. the courts have repeatedly stated that privacy can be read into the framework of the constitution hence for those of us living in reality the constitution does protect privacy as of now.

but fear not. you have the court. maybe they can go back to reading that suffrage is only for land owning white men...well at least letting the states say that.

and i do think most supreme court judges are smarter than you and most of us. and regardless of their intelligence, our system requires that we accept their pronouncements. maybe you should stop hating our constitution, and if you can't, perhaps you should go back to where you came from.

 

If you're being tapped without a warrant, then whatever you say in private is no longer private. The government would be in a gray area when it comes to incriminating evidence without a warrant, but on top of the news that they have been known to extradite people and rob citizens of their due process, it becomes a dangerously unchecked power.

Furthermore, the unimaginable wealth in personal information would allow whoever is in control to blackmail or extort all known opposition whether it be a reporter, grassroots candidate, or whistle blower. Privacy is crucial to our access to a democratic nation under the foundations of passive liberalism.

Everything you've said is made under the assumption that the good guys are only going to sift out bad and crucial information against terrorists. The Founding Fathers made the exact opposite assumption when they framed the Constitution. They recognized political and personal interests would corrupt the executive and legislative branches into forming convenient and expedient laws against any opposition.

The inability to read our minds is precisely why the government would want to invade our privacy. Freedom of speech, press and worship are the most tangible applications towards a society that enables their individuals to freely make their own decisions. Without the right to privacy, those three guaranteed rights are endangered, and as a consequence the right for an individual to freely think upon their own accord are also in danger.

The talking point into these intrusions is that if you're innocent, then you'd have nothing to worry. In truth, the innocent have the most to worry if the trust between the government and it's voting public is lost.

I might be scot free of indecency laws, but watching 2girls1cup must be breaking some kind of law...

 

Well, I do think Madison is smarter than you are.

He said...

''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.''

Which became...

The 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

But of course, there's that pesky 4th amendment as well...

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 entirety of the 4th Amendment has to do with privacy even though the word is not there. And yes, I think any reasonable person would conclude that papers and effects would include personal emails.

Don't let the last few decades of abortion arguments blind you on this issue.