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

[dblack]

Ron Paul: Why Won?t They Tell Us The Truth About NSA Spying? - OpEd Eurasia Review

Why Won’t They Tell Us The Truth About NSA Spying?

By Ron Paul

August 5, 2013

In 2001, the Patriot Act opened the door to US government monitoring of Americans without a warrant. It was unconstitutional, but most in Congress over my strong objection were so determined to do something after the attacks of 9/11 that they did not seem to give it too much thought. Civil liberties groups were concerned, and some of us in Congress warned about giving up our liberties even in the post-9/11 panic. But at the time most Americans did not seem too worried about the intrusion.

This complacency has suddenly shifted given recent revelations of the extent of government spying on Americans. Politicians and bureaucrats are faced with serious backlash from Americans outraged that their most personal communications are intercepted and stored. They had been told that only the terrorists would be monitored. In response to this anger, defenders of the program have time and again resorted to spreading lies and distortions. But these untruths are now being exposed very quickly.

In a Senate hearing this March, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told Senator Ron Wyden that the NSA did not collect phone records of millions of Americans. This was just three months before the revelations of an NSA leaker made it clear that Clapper was not telling the truth. Pressed on his false testimony before Congress, Clapper apologized for giving an “erroneous” answer but claimed it was just because he “simply didn’t think of Section 215 of the Patriot Act.” Wow.

As the story broke in June of the extent of warrantless NSA spying against Americans, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers assured us that the project was a strictly limited and not invasive. He described it as a “lockbox with only phone numbers, no names, no addresses in it, we’ve used it sparingly, it is absolutely overseen by the legislature, the judicial branch and the executive branch, has lots of protections built in…”

But we soon discovered that also was not true either. We learned in another Guardian newspaper article last week that the top secret “X-Keyscore” program allows even low-level analysts to “search with no prior authorization through vast databases containing emails, online chats and the browsing histories of millions of individuals.”

The keys to Rogers’ “lockbox” seem to have been handed out to everyone but the janitors! As Chairman of the Committee that is supposed to be most in the loop on these matters, it seems either the Intelligence Community misled him about their programs or he misled the rest of us. It sure would be nice to know which one it is.

Likewise, Rep. Rogers and many other defenders of the NSA spying program promised us that this dragnet scooping up the personal electronic communications of millions of Americans had already stopped “dozens” of terrorist plots against the United States. In June, NSA director General Keith Alexander claimed that the just-disclosed bulk collection of Americans’ phone and other electronic records had “foiled 50 terror plots.”

Opponents of the program were to be charged with being unconcerned with our security.

But none of it was true.

The Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday heard dramatic testimony from NSA deputy director John C. Inglis. According to the Guardian:

“The NSA has previously claimed that 54 terrorist plots had been disrupted ‘over the lifetime’ of the bulk phone records collection and the separate program collecting the internet habits and communications of people believed to be non-Americans. On Wednesday, Inglis said that at most one plot might have been disrupted by the bulk phone records collection alone.”
From dozens to “at most one”?

Supporters of these programs are now on the defensive, with several competing pieces of legislation in the House and Senate seeking to rein in an administration and intelligence apparatus that is clearly out of control. This is to be commended. What is even more important, though, is for more and more and more Americans to educate themselves about our precious liberties and to demand that their government abide by the Constitution. We do not have to accept being lied to – or spied on — by our government.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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 are, in effect, renting space on the server. Your information belongs to you.

 

[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.

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?




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?

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 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.

Those aren't my records. They are the property of the phone company. The suggestion that a private business doesn't own the records of the transactions it makes that it keeps in its own physical possession is quite absurd, actually. If those records were in fact my own property, I should be able to walk into Verizon and demand the originals be turned over to me any time I like, under penalty of law. But I can't, can I?

 

[Vox]

it's amazing how the left is willing to be subdued by the government if they consider it to be their own.

and always forget the old rule the revolutions devour their own children

 

[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?

You are, in effect, renting space on the server. Your information belongs to you.

I don't pay gmail a cent for the service. Either way, the server is their property (or the property of someone they may be leasing it from) - not mine. That's a bit like saying that by sending a package in the mail I'm renting a truck.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

it's amazing how the left is willing to be subdued by the government if they consider it to be their own.

and always forget the old rule the revolutions devour their own children

I've not been "subdued" in the least. I continue to work at the job of my choosing, life in the place of my choosing, and live the lifestyle of my choosing.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

Uhm, maybe because they didn't exist in the 18th century?

 

[Vox]

it's amazing how the left is willing to be subdued by the government if they consider it to be their own.

and always forget the old rule the revolutions devour their own children

I've not been "subdued" in the least. I continue to work at the job of my choosing, life in the place of my choosing, and live the lifestyle of my choosing.

you will and you will joyfully comply

 

[Avatar4321]

What exactly do you think being secure in your "effects" means?

 

[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

Uhm, maybe because they didn't exist in the 18th century?

I'm pretty sure they had electromagnetic radiation in the 18th century.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

it's amazing how the left is willing to be subdued by the government if they consider it to be their own.

and always forget the old rule the revolutions devour their own children

I've not been "subdued" in the least. I continue to work at the job of my choosing, life in the place of my choosing, and live the lifestyle of my choosing.

you will and you will joyfully comply

Perhaps I should choose the miserable life of a chronic cynic instead.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What exactly do you think being secure in your "effects" means?

Being secure in MY property. Things that I send beaming out into the public outside of my home or other property - whether it be smoke signals or electromagnetic radiation - no longer belongs to me. Do you think the Founders would have considered the recording of smoke signal communications by the government to be a violation of privacy?

 

[Avatar4321]

What exactly do you think being secure in your "effects" means?

Being secure in MY property. Things that I send beaming out into the public outside of my home or other property - whether it be smoke signals or electromagnetic radiation - no longer belongs to me. Do you think the Founders would have considered the recording of smoke signal communications by the government to be a violation of privacy?

Yes. Particularly since it was government seizure of written communications that inspired the amendment.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What exactly do you think being secure in your "effects" means?

Being secure in MY property. Things that I send beaming out into the public outside of my home or other property - whether it be smoke signals or electromagnetic radiation - no longer belongs to me. Do you think the Founders would have considered the recording of smoke signal communications by the government to be a violation of privacy?

Yes. Particularly since it was government seizure of written communications that inspired the amendment.

So let me get this straight - its your belief that the intent of the 4th amendment is that the government isn't even allowed to look at the sky?

A written communication that I have entrusted to an agent of mine to carry is still my own property until the intended recipient receives it, at which point it becomes their property. A written communication that I drop from a hot air balloon or shoot out of a cannon becomes the property of whomever finds it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

So... you had no issue with the Bush administration listning in on these calls w/o a warrant.

 

[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

So... you had no issue with the Bush administration listning in on these calls w/o a warrant.

Why does the right always want to talk about BOOOOOOSH ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

So... you had no issue with the Bush administration listning in on these calls w/o a warrant.

Why does the right always want to talk about BOOOOOOSH ?

Sorry.. your response is not clear.
Did you or did you not have an issue with the Bush administration listning in on these calls w/o a warrant?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So... you had no issue with the Bush administration listning in on these calls w/o a warrant.

Why does the right always want to talk about BOOOOOOSH ?

Sorry.. your response is not clear.
Did you or did you not have an issue with the Bush administration listning in on these calls w/o a warrant?

Yes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why does the right always want to talk about BOOOOOOSH ?

Sorry.. your response is not clear.
Did you or did you not have an issue with the Bush administration listning in on these calls w/o a warrant?

Yes.

Given your position in the OP, I am glad to hear you took no issue whatsoever with the warrantless wiretaps of cell phone conversations unde the Bush Adeministration - I'd hate for you to be inconsistent, dishonest or partisan.