Text of the 4th amendment does not include cell phones and internet

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Persons, houses, papers, and effects. Doesn't say anything about data that I send streaming out of my house into the public air space.


Sad to say this - but anyone who thought cell phones were private doesn't watch enough television. Hell I can remember when they first came out and they were "car phones". My father's law partner who was running for DA later figured out that his opponent was listening in on his cell phone conversations. I've never considered cell phones to be a 100% private method of communication

 

[dblack]

Heh... yep. You gotta point there!

Embracing your inner authoritarian?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Heh... yep. You gotta point there!

Embracing your inner authoritarian?

No, I'm looking for where the 4th amendment protects the privacy of electromagnetic radiation that I send streaming into the public air space.

Should I expect privacy when I use electromagnetic radiation in the visual spectrum? Suppose my wife and I want to make love with the windows open - the government would need a search warrant to look, right? Of course not if they window is wide open!

If I decide to start actively beaming microwave or radio wave radiation out of my house how is that any different? How is it "private" when its carried by radiation viewable to anyone in the public who wishes to intercept it?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Wouldn't cell phones, texts, emails and web searches fall under "effects"?

 

[OriginalShroom]

According to that logic, using a regular land line didn't qualify either.

I am going to disagree with you.

Just as the 1st Amendment protections for Freedom of Speech include the internet, Radio, and Television ( Things not in existence at the time of the writing of the Constitution ) , the 2nd includes modern firearms, the 4th should include modern means of communication.

 

[dilloduck]

Give SCOTUS a test case. They will decide all of this for us.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Persons, houses, papers, and effects. Doesn't say anything about data that I send streaming out of my house into the public air space.


Sad to say this - but anyone who thought cell phones were private doesn't watch enough television. Hell I can remember when they first came out and they were "car phones". My father's law partner who was running for DA later figured out that his opponent was listening in on his cell phone conversations. I've never considered cell phones to be a 100% private method of communication

My cell phone falls under the effects category, even if it confuses brain dead asswipes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Wouldn't cell phones, texts, emails and web searches fall under "effects"?

A cell phone is an "effect" as it is your personal property.


But the electromagnetic radiation it emits?

The record of an email I send that resides on a company's server - I don't own the server, do I?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

According to that logic, using a regular land line didn't qualify either.

I am going to disagree with you.

Just as the 1st Amendment protections for Freedom of Speech include the internet, Radio, and Television ( Things not in existence at the time of the writing of the Constitution ) , the 2nd includes modern firearms, the 4th should include modern means of communication.

Electromagnetic radiation most certainly existed at the time the Constitution was written.

I don't see the connection with the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment means I can freely speak - it doesn't mean the government is prohibited from using that speech against me.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Since you are interpreting the Constitution as a texturalist, doesn't that mean you must fully embrace and accept the 2nd Amendment, such that you cannot infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms? Or you only interpret the Constitution texturally when it is to your convenience?

Also, if you're going to interpret the Constitution as a texturalist, then you must adhere to the fact that the 9th and 10th Amendments retain and reserve the rights of policing our e-mails to the local and state governments, not the federal government. Or, again, do you only interpret the Constitution texturally when it is to your convenience?

Wouldn't cell phones, texts, emails and web searches fall under "effects"?

A cell phone is an "effect" as it is your personal property.


But the electromagnetic radiation it emits?

The record of an email I send that resides on a company's server - I don't own the server, do I?

That is equivalent saying the "ink on the letter" is not our personal property, therefore the government has the right to confiscate and review the letter anyway.

According to that logic, using a regular land line didn't qualify either.

I am going to disagree with you.

Just as the 1st Amendment protections for Freedom of Speech include the internet, Radio, and Television ( Things not in existence at the time of the writing of the Constitution ) , the 2nd includes modern firearms, the 4th should include modern means of communication.

Electromagnetic radiation most certainly existed at the time the Constitution was written.

I don't see the connection with the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment means I can freely speak - it doesn't mean the government is prohibited from using that speech against me.

Mormonism didn't exist at the writing of the First Amendment, does that mean that Mormonism is exempt, such that the Government can either force us to worship Mormonism; or, conversely, prohibit us from worshiping Mormonism?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Heh... yep. You gotta point there!

Embracing your inner authoritarian?

No, I'm looking for where the 4th amendment protects the privacy of electromagnetic radiation that I send streaming into the public air space.

Should I expect privacy when I use electromagnetic radiation in the visual spectrum? Suppose my wife and I want to make love with the windows open - the government would need a search warrant to look, right? Of course not if they window is wide open!

If I decide to start actively beaming microwave or radio wave radiation out of my house how is that any different? How is it "private" when its carried by radiation viewable to anyone in the public who wishes to intercept it?

Where does it protect the privacy of women wanting abortions or people having sex?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Give SCOTUS a test case. They will decide all of this for us.

Why not just strictly read the 4th amendment?


Says "effects" - that means personal property. Electromagnetic radiation that I send beaming FROM my personal property is NOT my personal property if I'm beaming out into the public. If I decide to drop a bucket of $100 bills from an airplane and the government picks one of them up without my permission and keeps it - does that mean they violated the 4th amendment? So how is it any different than if I drop a bucketful of radiation?

 

[dblack]

Heh... yep. You gotta point there!

Embracing your inner authoritarian?

No, I'm looking for where the 4th amendment protects the privacy of ...

Meh... you're making excuses for Big Brother. Piss off.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wouldn't cell phones, texts, emails and web searches fall under "effects"?

A cell phone is an "effect" as it is your personal property.


But the electromagnetic radiation it emits?

The record of an email I send that resides on a company's server - I don't own the server, do I?

If the 4th Amendment only applies to paper it doesn't protect stuff you write on plastic either.

I still remember when you thought you were smart enough to debunk any evidence anyone could provide that the Earth was round. Is this another attempt to convince yourself you are smarter than your dog?

 

[dilloduck]

Give SCOTUS a test case. They will decide all of this for us.

Why not just strictly read the 4th amendment?


Says "effects" - that means personal property. Electromagnetic radiation that I send beaming FROM my personal property is NOT my personal property if I'm beaming out into the public. If I decide to drop a bucket of $100 bills from an airplane and the government picks one of them up without my permission and keeps it - does that mean they violated the 4th amendment? So how is it any different than if I drop a bucketful of radiation?

I told ya---you have to ask the judges. Whatever they say, goes.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Since you are interpreting the Constitution as a texturalist, doesn't that mean you must fully embrace and accept the 2nd Amendment, such that you cannot infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms? Or you only interpret the Constitution texturally when it is to your convenience?

What do you care? You WANT the Constitution to be violated.

. Let's hope the federal government accelerates it's suspension of the Constitution.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Heh... yep. You gotta point there!

Embracing your inner authoritarian?

No, I'm looking for where the 4th amendment protects the privacy of ...

Meh... you're making excuses for Big Brother. Piss off.

So the Constitution protects whatever rights you say it protects, and the text is irrelevant?

 

[OKTexas]

Heh... yep. You gotta point there!

Embracing your inner authoritarian?

No, I'm looking for where the 4th amendment protects the privacy of electromagnetic radiation that I send streaming into the public air space.

Should I expect privacy when I use electromagnetic radiation in the visual spectrum? Suppose my wife and I want to make love with the windows open - the government would need a search warrant to look, right? Of course not if they window is wide open!

If I decide to start actively beaming microwave or radio wave radiation out of my house how is that any different? How is it "private" when its carried by radiation viewable to anyone in the public who wishes to intercept it?

They are not intercepting you microwaves, they are confiscating your records which are part of your papers and effects, which are covered under the 4th Amendment.

 

[dblack]

No, I'm looking for where the 4th amendment protects the privacy of ...

Meh... you're making excuses for Big Brother. Piss off.

So the Constitution protects whatever rights you say it protects, and the text is irrelevant?

So... no, that's not what I said. What I said was that you're making excuses for Big Brother. You're weaseling around trying to find loopholes that make it ok for the regime you support to be an even bigger bunch of authoritarian asshats than the one that preceded them.

OH, and Piss off. I said that too.

 

[Pete7469]

And no where in the constitution is there a single reference to marriage, let alone fudge packers getting married. There's nothing in there that allows women to get babies sucked out of their womb, nor anything prohibiting it. There's no "right" to healthcare, nothing about a "living wage" and the "general welfare" bullshit you bed wetters like to tout isn't in their either.

There is a specific right to own weapons, but you imbeciles can't stand it.