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

[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?

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

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

For quoting me out of context:

I will repeat this post every time the OP posts in this thread, until he decides to answer this post:

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?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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?

You own the content. Wasn't that the basis of the music and movie industry going after people file sharing? They created the original document therefore sharing that information with others without paying was wrong. They even got the government to send us a huge warning about piracy before we can watch a movie. Why would that not apply to personal communication?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Hence the doctrine of a reasonable expectation of privacy. See: Katz v. United States (1967).

Current 4th Amendment jurisprudence holds that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when personal information is willingly provided to a private third party. See: United States v. Miller 1976, Smith v. Maryland (1979).

Consequently, when one willingly provides personal information to an ISP or wireless phone company, that information may be obtained by the government absent a warrant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

You own the content. Wasn't that the basis of the music and movie industry going after people file sharing? They created the original document therefore sharing that information with others without paying was wrong. They even got the government to send us a huge warning about piracy before we can watch a movie. Why would that not apply to personal communication?

The issue isn’t whether the information is considered ‘personal’ or not, but what is a reasonable expectation that the personal information might remain private in a given context.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

You own the content. Wasn't that the basis of the music and movie industry going after people file sharing? They created the original document therefore sharing that information with others without paying was wrong. They even got the government to send us a huge warning about piracy before we can watch a movie. Why would that not apply to personal communication?

The issue isn’t whether the information is considered ‘personal’ or not, but what is a reasonable expectation that the personal information might remain private in a given context.

I think, you have hit on the main points. So, if you have information on your personal computer, you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, if you e-mail that information, I would expect you have lost that reasonable expectation. As far as cell phones, I think the conversation would still need a warrant as would landlines would. The phone numbers, they come from the phone company.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

No right is absolute, including those enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

Reasonable restrictions put into place in accordance with the Constitution and its case law is not ‘big brother.’

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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?

You own the content. Wasn't that the basis of the music and movie industry going after people file sharing? They created the original document therefore sharing that information with others without paying was wrong. They even got the government to send us a huge warning about piracy before we can watch a movie. Why would that not apply to personal communication?

The issue isn’t whether the information is considered ‘personal’ or not, but what is a reasonable expectation that the personal information might remain private in a given context.

Why would I send anything to anyone not expecting it to be private unless I post it on an open forum?

 

[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.

Hence the doctrine of a reasonable expectation of privacy. See: Katz v. United States (1967).

Current 4th Amendment jurisprudence holds that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when personal information is willingly provided to a private third party. See: United States v. Miller 1976, Smith v. Maryland (1979).

Consequently, when one willingly provides personal information to an ISP or wireless phone company, that information may be obtained by the government absent a warrant.

What the fuck does reasonable expectation of privacy even mean? It sounds like a rationalization from a bunch of people that want the government to be able to do whatever it wants whenever it wants.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

You own the content. Wasn't that the basis of the music and movie industry going after people file sharing? They created the original document therefore sharing that information with others without paying was wrong. They even got the government to send us a huge warning about piracy before we can watch a movie. Why would that not apply to personal communication?

The issue isn’t whether the information is considered ‘personal’ or not, but what is a reasonable expectation that the personal information might remain private in a given context.

Does that mean that, if I leave my information in a secure online account with 256 bit AES encryption that would take hundreds of years to crack that the government can force a third party to cough up my password, or does it mean you have no idea what the fuck I am talking about?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

No right is absolute, including those enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

Reasonable restrictions put into place in accordance with the Constitution and its case law is not ‘big brother.’

Tell me something, when is the right to remain silent not absolute? Does the government have some way of forcing people to talk when it decides that they reached the end of the right to remain silent, or are you just repeating platitudes because you are so stupid that thinking for yourself would require 16 other people to give you directions?

 

[KissMy]

Why is it illegal to hack Satellite TV signals but not my private phone or email? Why can't I watch, listen to, record or sell any movie, video, music or data that is transmitted across my private property? Apparently TV, phone, internet service providers, utilities, etc, are all allowed to hack, watch, listen to, record or sell any of my private email, voice, video communications or data.

 

[asterism]

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

Cell phones were not encrypted back then. These days they are, therefore the electromagnetic radiation I send out from my location is done with a specific destination. It's the same as mail sent to a specific address, the government needs a warrant to access those too.

Call data? I agree, it's not private.

 

[g5000]

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

There already has been a case. More than one. Your phone conversations cannot be monitored without a warrant.

The OP is retarded.

 

[g5000]

Whenever someone says, "Show me where (fill in the blank) is in the Constitution", they are demonstrating their ignorance.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

No right is absolute, including those enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

Reasonable restrictions put into place in accordance with the Constitution and its case law is not ‘big brother.’

Only a Jury has the right to decide if you have acted outside your rights, not the Government, thus the Government has no authority to preemptively set boundaries about your rights.

The Government must Amend the Constitution, as prescribed by Article V, in order to further limit your rights; as all other rights, not enumerated in the Constitution, are retained by the People, or reserved to the States, respectively--as declared by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

[Politico]

Damn those founding fathers for leaving out that stuff!

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

Cell phones were not encrypted back then. These days they are, therefore the electromagnetic radiation I send out from my location is done with a specific destination. It's the same as mail sent to a specific address, the government needs a warrant to access those too.

Call data? I agree, it's not private.

Weren't they regular analog radio signals then, able to be heard on a scanner?

 

[dblack]

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.

No right is absolute, including those enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.

Reasonable restrictions put into place in accordance with the Constitution and its case law is not ‘big brother.’

And I didn't say that either. Check your reading comprehension. OooPoo isn't defending "reasonable restrictions put into place in accordance with the Constitution" - he's looking for loopholes around them; to make excuses for Big Brother.

This whole thing is depressing. Democrats have never impressed me as genuine 'liberals', but all the excusing-making for the police state coming from supporters seals the deal. Obama is out neo-conning Bush and you've got his back. You should be ashamed.

 

[rightwinger]

Damn those founding fathers for leaving out that stuff!

It must have been their intent, otherwise they would have included a provision for future communications improvements.

 

[editec]

If one must OPEN anything it is an INVASION of privacy.

Open a drawer, open a door, open a letter, open a closed book, open(break) a code, open a telephonic line of communication...

We ALL know that the moment the invader opens something that we had every right to believe was not available to the public, THAT is an invasion of our privacy.