login
Where is the outrage again? (Page 4)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-12-13 2:16 PM in reply to: #4534143 |
 Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again?powerman - 2012-12-13 12:09 PM ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:05 PM powerman - 2012-12-13 12:00 PM bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 12:27 PM powerman - 2012-12-13 1:19 PM But it's PUBLIC.....there is no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC. Tomorrow at 9am, I'm going to be making tin-foil hats. They will come in different shapes and sizes. Let me know if you want any designs (Mickey ears, swan, Longhorns, etc) and I'll do my best. bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 12:08 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-13 11:51 AM Sure it keeps us safe. How many times do you hear of a "thwarted terrorist plot" or an undercover agent giving a 'bomb' to someone then arresting them. Do you think that they just happen upon this stuff? No....they catch them doing something or having a conversation or typing on a message board. As unfortunate as it is....you should not have an expectation of privacy in public. If you're having a conversation about bombing a school.....and an undercover cop happens to be near working an unrelated case, does that mean that he shouldn't have heard you? Again.....if you're living right, you don't have to worry. Aarondb4 - 2012-12-13 11:49 AM The thing is that it doesn't keep them safe. It does nothing but waste money. It provides a false sense of security, just like taking off your shoes at the airport or allowing `random' searches at train stations.
All well and good to slowly trample the constitution. People go along because it will "keep them safe" or they "have nothing to hide". What happens 25-50 years later when all this is in place and the rest of the constitution has been gutted? Welcome to the police state. It's called "probable cause". You can't just investigate someone for no reason... you have to have a reason. That is the problem... they have no reason... they are just throwing out a big net and seeing what they catch. That is not Constitutional. And no I'm not OK just allowing the government to just ignore the Constitution. I understand I can be on a surveillance tape for an number of reasons. At store or cameras... but they are not turning that over to the "State" to get me.. it's just store security, and if the place is robber... or a crime COMMITTED, then they use it to catch the guy. That is fine... probable cause. But to listen and record people for no reason, then it isn't right.... and the problem with all of this is your very attitude... ya it's all good when it does not effect you... but then years down the road someone else starts using it for their own reasons and all of a sudden we have no control and the reason it's so good anymore... and then you are in jail against your Constitutional rights because of some misunderstanding... and then you want a lawyer.... but you can't have that either... There is an expectation the GOVERNMENT is not going to be INVESTIGATING me for no reason. Has nothing to do with me being in "public"... I have no expectation to privacy in public so I don't pull down my pants expecting it. I have full expectation that I am covered under the forth to unreasonable SEARCH and seizure without cause. You're mixing your concepts. The expectation is of privacy, not whether you are being investigated. You are covered against unreasonable search and seizure under the 4A. That's not an issue. The question is what is an unreasonable search and seizure. BTW, the 4A search and seizure law, in practice, is an evidentiary issue. Not whether the gov't can investigate you or not, only whether that evidence was constitutionally obtained and thus can be used against you. Yes, you can be investigated... for a REASON... not just for giggles, not just for the heck of seeing what we find. And if you surveil me, and use that evidence against me, it had to be obtained through proper authority and probable cause.... you can't go on a fishing expedition and then see what you find and and then bring charges against me or use it for a more comprehensive investigation... which is exactly what this public surveillance is. What's your authority for the bolded section? Edited by ChrisM 2012-12-13 2:17 PM |
| 2012-12-13 2:19 PM in reply to: #4534141 |
Champion  34263     Chicago | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? r1237h - 2012-12-13 2:09 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-13 11:47 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 1:46 PM Wait. How'd YOU know I have a plate in my head!? mr2tony - 2012-12-13 1:44 PM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 1:39 PM I'm not affected. I don't own a car. Really, cameras are nothing. There are now license plate readers......they capture your plate as you drive by and send your information to us via terminal. You ready for this scenario: We (the govt.) set up a plate reader at a major intersection. Your name and address from your registration is sent to our mobile terminals. We take your name and address and enter you into one of the monstrous databases now available to us (or we program the reader to do it for us). I an instant, as you drive by, I know where you live, where you work, what your income was reported the last quarter, where you bank, if you have a CCW license, what your spouse and children's names are, where your spouse works, every address you have ever used, every credit card you have ever used, and on and on. This isn't something that is coming down the road.....it's here, I've watched it. Feel safe?  It could be programmed to read the plate in your head.
The microphone in your bedroom heard you mention it last week when you were discussing it. Sadly, nothing else of interest was heard... Oh snap. My missus is going to kick your behind when she reads this. Though I'm not sure why she would. I just like saying that. Because she's tougher than me. |
| 2012-12-13 2:23 PM in reply to: #4534160 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:16 PM powerman - 2012-12-13 12:09 PM ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:05 PM powerman - 2012-12-13 12:00 PM bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 12:27 PM powerman - 2012-12-13 1:19 PM But it's PUBLIC.....there is no expectation of privacy in PUBLIC. Tomorrow at 9am, I'm going to be making tin-foil hats. They will come in different shapes and sizes. Let me know if you want any designs (Mickey ears, swan, Longhorns, etc) and I'll do my best. bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 12:08 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-13 11:51 AM Sure it keeps us safe. How many times do you hear of a "thwarted terrorist plot" or an undercover agent giving a 'bomb' to someone then arresting them. Do you think that they just happen upon this stuff? No....they catch them doing something or having a conversation or typing on a message board. As unfortunate as it is....you should not have an expectation of privacy in public. If you're having a conversation about bombing a school.....and an undercover cop happens to be near working an unrelated case, does that mean that he shouldn't have heard you? Again.....if you're living right, you don't have to worry. Aarondb4 - 2012-12-13 11:49 AM The thing is that it doesn't keep them safe. It does nothing but waste money. It provides a false sense of security, just like taking off your shoes at the airport or allowing `random' searches at train stations.
All well and good to slowly trample the constitution. People go along because it will "keep them safe" or they "have nothing to hide". What happens 25-50 years later when all this is in place and the rest of the constitution has been gutted? Welcome to the police state. It's called "probable cause". You can't just investigate someone for no reason... you have to have a reason. That is the problem... they have no reason... they are just throwing out a big net and seeing what they catch. That is not Constitutional. And no I'm not OK just allowing the government to just ignore the Constitution. I understand I can be on a surveillance tape for an number of reasons. At store or cameras... but they are not turning that over to the "State" to get me.. it's just store security, and if the place is robber... or a crime COMMITTED, then they use it to catch the guy. That is fine... probable cause. But to listen and record people for no reason, then it isn't right.... and the problem with all of this is your very attitude... ya it's all good when it does not effect you... but then years down the road someone else starts using it for their own reasons and all of a sudden we have no control and the reason it's so good anymore... and then you are in jail against your Constitutional rights because of some misunderstanding... and then you want a lawyer.... but you can't have that either... There is an expectation the GOVERNMENT is not going to be INVESTIGATING me for no reason. Has nothing to do with me being in "public"... I have no expectation to privacy in public so I don't pull down my pants expecting it. I have full expectation that I am covered under the forth to unreasonable SEARCH and seizure without cause. You're mixing your concepts. The expectation is of privacy, not whether you are being investigated. You are covered against unreasonable search and seizure under the 4A. That's not an issue. The question is what is an unreasonable search and seizure. BTW, the 4A search and seizure law, in practice, is an evidentiary issue. Not whether the gov't can investigate you or not, only whether that evidence was constitutionally obtained and thus can be used against you. Yes, you can be investigated... for a REASON... not just for giggles, not just for the heck of seeing what we find. And if you surveil me, and use that evidence against me, it had to be obtained through proper authority and probable cause.... you can't go on a fishing expedition and then see what you find and and then bring charges against me or use it for a more comprehensive investigation... which is exactly what this public surveillance is. What's your authority for the bolded section? Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. |
| 2012-12-13 2:23 PM in reply to: #4534156 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? tuwood - 2012-12-13 2:15 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-13 2:01 PM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 1:57 PM I would hope companies wouldn't be giving it to them. Maybe I'm jaded but isn't that illegal? mr2tony - 2012-12-13 1:56 PM bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 1:52 PM There's no expectation to privacy from a company. There is from the government. tuwood - 2012-12-13 1:49 PM But just a second ago, you were talking about 4A being trashed....and now you're bragging about "collecting data". Pick a side. It's almost scary how much we are tracked on a daily basis and many people don't even realize it. My company sells and installs IT stuff and in order to more efficiently manage our customers computers we have software on them that "collects data" and has remote access. I have a number of engineers that have access to the hard drives of literally thousands of PC's all over the US. These are all business PC's and laptops, but they're taken home and used for personal stuff too. We can remote in, do screenshots, install software, you name it. i just met with a large client yesterday that's we're selling them Mobile Device Management software to track their employees company issued phones and ipads. You'd freak out at the amount of data the employer has access to and I can guarantee you the employees have no idea the software is even on their device because their permission is buried in some company paperwork/policy they signed but never read. That's right....but where do you think the govt. gets the information from? It gets touchy in some situations. For example if one of my engineers is doing a virus scan on a PC and notices a "personal pictures" folder that contains some potentially illegal images we almost have to report that. Our policy is to report it to the business owner as their acting IT staff and let them take it from there if they want to call the Po Po or not. I think the big difference is the user doesn't have an expectation of privacy on a company owned laptop. You also hear a lot of stories about some dude dropping his laptop off at best buy to get fixed and they find some bad pictures and call the cops. The police get a warrant based on the statement of the employee on what he saw. So there is technically no 4th amendment violation due to the person who had permission to work on it discovering the images. And frankly I don't disagree with that. If you take your computer somewhere to be fixed and the person authorized to fix it sees illegal images then by all means, they should report it, especially if it's a Sandusky-type situation. Now, if the government decides to install a chip in every computer made that can look and see what is on one's computer, then I would protest. It's all about a reasonable expectation to privacy. Work computers or laptops you take to a dealer for service, you can't expect privacy on those computers. |
| 2012-12-13 2:24 PM in reply to: #4534172 |
| Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. Edited by ChrisM 2012-12-13 2:25 PM |
| 2012-12-13 2:30 PM in reply to: #4534177 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? ChrisM - 2012-12-13 2:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. But it's not fair because you went to 30 years of law school and we're stuck with google. |
| 2012-12-13 2:31 PM in reply to: #4534177 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. Here is a summary of key decisions from the court’s 2011-2012 term: In one of the biggest Fourth Amendment cases blending technology and privacy in a decade, the justices ruled unanimously in January that the authorities need a warrant to affix a GPS device to a vehicle to track its every move. The decision, in a case brought by a convicted drug dealer whose life sentence was overturned, was a blow to the Obama administration, which had argued that Americans have no expectation of privacy in their public movements. While the decision was unanimous, the five justices who controlled the decision, led by Justin Antonin Scalia, said the mere act of affixing the device to the car amounted to a search and demanded a probable-cause warrant. The Justice Department has disabled as many as 3,000 GPS trackers in the decision’s aftermath.
|
| 2012-12-13 2:35 PM in reply to: #4534185 |
| Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? tuwood - 2012-12-13 12:30 PM ChrisM - 2012-12-13 2:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. But it's not fair because you went to 30 years of law school and we're stuck with google.
35. I was slow |
| 2012-12-13 2:44 PM in reply to: #4534189 |
| Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? powerman - 2012-12-13 12:31 PM ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. Here is a summary of key decisions from the court’s 2011-2012 term: In one of the biggest Fourth Amendment cases blending technology and privacy in a decade, the justices ruled unanimously in January that the authorities need a warrant to affix a GPS device to a vehicle to track its every move. The decision, in a case brought by a convicted drug dealer whose life sentence was overturned, was a blow to the Obama administration, which had argued that Americans have no expectation of privacy in their public movements. While the decision was unanimous, the five justices who controlled the decision, led by Justin Antonin Scalia, said the mere act of affixing the device to the car amounted to a search and demanded a probable-cause warrant. The Justice Department has disabled as many as 3,000 GPS trackers in the decision’s aftermath.
That case doesn't say that the government needs a reason to investigate you. All it says is that if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, a warrant is required to lawfully collect evidence. Got no issue with that. That case only says that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their vehicle. The court said: "It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have beenconsidered a "search" within the meaning of the FourthAmendment when it was adopted." emphasis mine and By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area. In Class itself we suggested that this would make adifference, for we concluded that an officer’s momentary reaching into the interior of a vehicle did constitute a search." The court held that attaching a bug onto a car without probable cause was a search and seizure because there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. Case does not say that a warrant, i.e., probable cause, was needed for every search and seizure. Because that is not the law, as far as I know it ETA - btw, ironically enough that opinion, upholding the 4th Amendment, was written by every liberal's nightmare justice Scalia ETA 2 - BTW, I am no apologist for law enforcement or the gov't over reaching, there are clearly defined ways of doing things, and if they screw up, well there are consequences (exclusion), and rightly so. However, I think that claims of "outrage" and "freedoms being trampled on" should not just be wolf cries, but actual violations of liberties. As Sun Tzu said, he who defends everythign defends nothing. Pick your battles wisely. Edited by ChrisM 2012-12-13 2:49 PM |
| 2012-12-13 2:50 PM in reply to: #4534189 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? powerman - 2012-12-13 2:31 PM ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. Here is a summary of key decisions from the court’s 2011-2012 term: In one of the biggest Fourth Amendment cases blending technology and privacy in a decade, the justices ruled unanimously in January that the authorities need a warrant to affix a GPS device to a vehicle to track its every move. The decision, in a case brought by a convicted drug dealer whose life sentence was overturned, was a blow to the Obama administration, which had argued that Americans have no expectation of privacy in their public movements. While the decision was unanimous, the five justices who controlled the decision, led by Justin Antonin Scalia, said the mere act of affixing the device to the car amounted to a search and demanded a probable-cause warrant. The Justice Department has disabled as many as 3,000 GPS trackers in the decision’s aftermath.
This is a private vehicle. Just like your house.....Read 4A.... 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. It says nothing about being out in public or what happens during the course of a day. If you're out in public, then no....you shouldn't expect that everything you do is private. What am I missing. Everyone quoting something SCOTUS, etc....is all about privacy at home. I get that. But that's not what's being discussed. It's being out in public domain. |
| 2012-12-13 2:52 PM in reply to: #4534229 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 12:50 PM I have a big nose and I sit down to pee. It's true. Edited by Big Appa 2012-12-13 2:54 PM |
| 2012-12-13 2:52 PM in reply to: #4534167 |
Veteran 698 | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? mr2tony - 2012-12-13 12:19 PM r1237h - 2012-12-13 2:09 PM Oh snap. My missus is going to kick your behind when she reads this. Though I'm not sure why she would. I just like saying that. Because she's tougher than me. mr2tony - 2012-12-13 11:47 AM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 1:46 PM Wait. How'd YOU know I have a plate in my head!? mr2tony - 2012-12-13 1:44 PM Left Brain - 2012-12-13 1:39 PM I'm not affected. I don't own a car. Really, cameras are nothing. There are now license plate readers......they capture your plate as you drive by and send your information to us via terminal. You ready for this scenario: We (the govt.) set up a plate reader at a major intersection. Your name and address from your registration is sent to our mobile terminals. We take your name and address and enter you into one of the monstrous databases now available to us (or we program the reader to do it for us). I an instant, as you drive by, I know where you live, where you work, what your income was reported the last quarter, where you bank, if you have a CCW license, what your spouse and children's names are, where your spouse works, every address you have ever used, every credit card you have ever used, and on and on. This isn't something that is coming down the road.....it's here, I've watched it. Feel safe? It could be programmed to read the plate in your head.
The microphone in your bedroom heard you mention it last week when you were discussing it. Sadly, nothing else of interest was heard...
She can't. There is also video to back up what I said.... |
| 2012-12-13 2:56 PM in reply to: #4534237 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? Big Appa - 2012-12-13 2:52 PM bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 12:50 PM I have a big nose and I set down to pee. It's true. But that's in private so no one would have a way of knowing that. If I did in public, then....by all means, let the record reflect that. I also like to do things in the privacy of my house that I don't want people to know about (Cords mom being one of them).....but I sure as heck don't take Ms. Appa out in public. In fact, I make her park in the garage so she actually never steps foot in public to be documented that she was, in fact, at my house getting the dust knocked off. |
| 2012-12-13 3:02 PM in reply to: #4534216 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? ChrisM - 2012-12-13 2:44 PM powerman - 2012-12-13 12:31 PM ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. Here is a summary of key decisions from the court’s 2011-2012 term: In one of the biggest Fourth Amendment cases blending technology and privacy in a decade, the justices ruled unanimously in January that the authorities need a warrant to affix a GPS device to a vehicle to track its every move. The decision, in a case brought by a convicted drug dealer whose life sentence was overturned, was a blow to the Obama administration, which had argued that Americans have no expectation of privacy in their public movements. While the decision was unanimous, the five justices who controlled the decision, led by Justin Antonin Scalia, said the mere act of affixing the device to the car amounted to a search and demanded a probable-cause warrant. The Justice Department has disabled as many as 3,000 GPS trackers in the decision’s aftermath.
That case doesn't say that the government needs a reason to investigate you. All it says is that if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, a warrant is required to lawfully collect evidence. Got no issue with that. That case only says that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their vehicle. The court said: "It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have beenconsidered a "search" within the meaning of the FourthAmendment when it was adopted." emphasis mine and By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area. In Class itself we suggested that this would make adifference, for we concluded that an officer’s momentary reaching into the interior of a vehicle did constitute a search." The court held that attaching a bug onto a car without probable cause was a search and seizure because there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. Case does not say that a warrant, i.e., probable cause, was needed for every search and seizure. Because that is not the law, as far as I know it ETA - btw, ironically enough that opinion, upholding the 4th Amendment, was written by every liberal's nightmare justice Scalia ETA 2 - BTW, I am no apologist for law enforcement or the gov't over reaching, there are clearly defined ways of doing things, and if they screw up, well there are consequences (exclusion), and rightly so. However, I think that claims of "outrage" and "freedoms being trampled on" should not just be wolf cries, but actual violations of liberties. As Sun Tzu said, he who defends everythign defends nothing. Pick your battles wisely. But it also said the case ``offers no guidance as to when monitoring becomes so efficient or ‘prolonged’ as to constitute a search triggering the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.'' In other words, the government can't, without giving a reason, indefinitely monitor somebody or it becomes a `search' and is protected under the 4th Amendment. Further, ``The case illustrates how the sequence of a person’s movements may reveal more than the individual movements of which it is composed.'' ``A person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly churchgoer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups — and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.'' And that is why a warrant is required, to prevent the government from indefinitely monitoring and obtaining facts about one that is, frankly, none of its business. |
| 2012-12-13 3:05 PM in reply to: #4534229 |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 2:50 PM powerman - 2012-12-13 2:31 PM This is a private vehicle. Just like your house.....Read 4A.... 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. It says nothing about being out in public or what happens during the course of a day. If you're out in public, then no....you shouldn't expect that everything you do is private. What am I missing. Everyone quoting something SCOTUS, etc....is all about privacy at home. I get that. But that's not what's being discussed. It's being out in public domain. ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. Here is a summary of key decisions from the court’s 2011-2012 term: In one of the biggest Fourth Amendment cases blending technology and privacy in a decade, the justices ruled unanimously in January that the authorities need a warrant to affix a GPS device to a vehicle to track its every move. The decision, in a case brought by a convicted drug dealer whose life sentence was overturned, was a blow to the Obama administration, which had argued that Americans have no expectation of privacy in their public movements. While the decision was unanimous, the five justices who controlled the decision, led by Justin Antonin Scalia, said the mere act of affixing the device to the car amounted to a search and demanded a probable-cause warrant. The Justice Department has disabled as many as 3,000 GPS trackers in the decision’s aftermath.
Actually on this case I believe the LE officers went into the garage where the car was parked and installed a GPS on it and that is where they messed up. Before that, if a car was parked in a parking lot, LE could place the device on it whenever they wanted. |
| 2012-12-13 3:07 PM in reply to: #4534269 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? jford2309 - 2012-12-13 3:05 PM bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 2:50 PM powerman - 2012-12-13 2:31 PM This is a private vehicle. Just like your house.....Read 4A.... 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. It says nothing about being out in public or what happens during the course of a day. If you're out in public, then no....you shouldn't expect that everything you do is private. What am I missing. Everyone quoting something SCOTUS, etc....is all about privacy at home. I get that. But that's not what's being discussed. It's being out in public domain. ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. Here is a summary of key decisions from the court’s 2011-2012 term: In one of the biggest Fourth Amendment cases blending technology and privacy in a decade, the justices ruled unanimously in January that the authorities need a warrant to affix a GPS device to a vehicle to track its every move. The decision, in a case brought by a convicted drug dealer whose life sentence was overturned, was a blow to the Obama administration, which had argued that Americans have no expectation of privacy in their public movements. While the decision was unanimous, the five justices who controlled the decision, led by Justin Antonin Scalia, said the mere act of affixing the device to the car amounted to a search and demanded a probable-cause warrant. The Justice Department has disabled as many as 3,000 GPS trackers in the decision’s aftermath.
Actually on this case I believe the LE officers went into the garage where the car was parked and installed a GPS on it and that is where they messed up. Before that, if a car was parked in a parking lot, LE could place the device on it whenever they wanted. I dont think so. You can't indefinitely place surveillance someone without a warrant. You can't bug their phone indefinitely without a warrant. There is an implied right to privacy, which is what protects us from the government watching us 24/7 like they do in England. |
| 2012-12-13 3:09 PM in reply to: #4534277 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? mr2tony - 2012-12-13 3:07 PM I dont think so. You can't indefinitely place surveillance someone without a warrant. You can't bug their phone indefinitely without a warrant. There is an implied right to privacy, which is what protects us from the government watching us 24/7 like they do in England. Again....you left leaning puppet.....we're talking about public stuff. Why do you tree-hugging hippie types keep bringing your argument back to private matters. Holy Bejebus....it's like talking to a 3rd grader. |
| 2012-12-13 3:11 PM in reply to: #4534262 |
| Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? mr2tony - 2012-12-13 1:02 PM ChrisM - 2012-12-13 2:44 PM But it also said the case ``offers no guidance as to when monitoring becomes so efficient or ‘prolonged’ as to constitute a search triggering the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.'' In other words, the government can't, without giving a reason, indefinitely monitor somebody or it becomes a `search' and is protected under the 4th Amendment. Further, ``The case illustrates how the sequence of a person’s movements may reveal more than the individual movements of which it is composed.'' ``A person who knows all of another’s travels can deduce whether he is a weekly churchgoer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups — and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.'' And that is why a warrant is required, to prevent the government from indefinitely monitoring and obtaining facts about one that is, frankly, none of its business. powerman - 2012-12-13 12:31 PM ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. Here is a summary of key decisions from the court’s 2011-2012 term: In one of the biggest Fourth Amendment cases blending technology and privacy in a decade, the justices ruled unanimously in January that the authorities need a warrant to affix a GPS device to a vehicle to track its every move. The decision, in a case brought by a convicted drug dealer whose life sentence was overturned, was a blow to the Obama administration, which had argued that Americans have no expectation of privacy in their public movements. While the decision was unanimous, the five justices who controlled the decision, led by Justin Antonin Scalia, said the mere act of affixing the device to the car amounted to a search and demanded a probable-cause warrant. The Justice Department has disabled as many as 3,000 GPS trackers in the decision’s aftermath.
That case doesn't say that the government needs a reason to investigate you. All it says is that if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, a warrant is required to lawfully collect evidence. Got no issue with that. That case only says that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their vehicle. The court said: "It is important to be clear about what occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have beenconsidered a "search" within the meaning of the FourthAmendment when it was adopted." emphasis mine and By attaching the device to the Jeep, officers encroached on a protected area. In Class itself we suggested that this would make adifference, for we concluded that an officer’s momentary reaching into the interior of a vehicle did constitute a search." The court held that attaching a bug onto a car without probable cause was a search and seizure because there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. Case does not say that a warrant, i.e., probable cause, was needed for every search and seizure. Because that is not the law, as far as I know it ETA - btw, ironically enough that opinion, upholding the 4th Amendment, was written by every liberal's nightmare justice Scalia ETA 2 - BTW, I am no apologist for law enforcement or the gov't over reaching, there are clearly defined ways of doing things, and if they screw up, well there are consequences (exclusion), and rightly so. However, I think that claims of "outrage" and "freedoms being trampled on" should not just be wolf cries, but actual violations of liberties. As Sun Tzu said, he who defends everythign defends nothing. Pick your battles wisely. But I don't think you can make the conclusion you make in italics - that a warrant is always required (at least, I think that's the conlusion you are making) by that case. See the bold, talks about "when monitoring becomes so prolonged" so as to require a warrant. Under that language, there is room for monitoring prior to that point where a warrant is required. As you note, it does not rule on how long that period is, or what circumstances have to be present (since each case is so fact specific) |
| 2012-12-13 3:11 PM in reply to: #4534277 |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? mr2tony - 2012-12-13 3:07 PM jford2309 - 2012-12-13 3:05 PM I dont think so. You can't indefinitely place surveillance someone without a warrant. You can't bug their phone indefinitely without a warrant. There is an implied right to privacy, which is what protects us from the government watching us 24/7 like they do in England. bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 2:50 PM powerman - 2012-12-13 2:31 PM This is a private vehicle. Just like your house.....Read 4A.... 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. It says nothing about being out in public or what happens during the course of a day. If you're out in public, then no....you shouldn't expect that everything you do is private. What am I missing. Everyone quoting something SCOTUS, etc....is all about privacy at home. I get that. But that's not what's being discussed. It's being out in public domain. ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. Here is a summary of key decisions from the court’s 2011-2012 term: In one of the biggest Fourth Amendment cases blending technology and privacy in a decade, the justices ruled unanimously in January that the authorities need a warrant to affix a GPS device to a vehicle to track its every move. The decision, in a case brought by a convicted drug dealer whose life sentence was overturned, was a blow to the Obama administration, which had argued that Americans have no expectation of privacy in their public movements. While the decision was unanimous, the five justices who controlled the decision, led by Justin Antonin Scalia, said the mere act of affixing the device to the car amounted to a search and demanded a probable-cause warrant. The Justice Department has disabled as many as 3,000 GPS trackers in the decision’s aftermath.
Actually on this case I believe the LE officers went into the garage where the car was parked and installed a GPS on it and that is where they messed up. Before that, if a car was parked in a parking lot, LE could place the device on it whenever they wanted.
In TN you can record any phone call you want as long as one person knows it is being recorded. |
| 2012-12-13 3:15 PM in reply to: #4534269 |
| Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? jford2309 - 2012-12-13 1:05 PM bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 2:50 PM powerman - 2012-12-13 2:31 PM This is a private vehicle. Just like your house.....Read 4A.... 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. It says nothing about being out in public or what happens during the course of a day. If you're out in public, then no....you shouldn't expect that everything you do is private. What am I missing. Everyone quoting something SCOTUS, etc....is all about privacy at home. I get that. But that's not what's being discussed. It's being out in public domain. ChrisM - 2012-12-13 1:24 PM Constitution, SCOTUS rulings... that's all I really have to go by. clipped for brevity Need to do better than that. By authority, I mean a specific SCOTUS ruling, law. By that same level of defense, if you asked me what supports my opinion, I could just as easily say SCOTUS, Constitution, law. Of course, that's not really citing any authority though. Here is a summary of key decisions from the court’s 2011-2012 term: In one of the biggest Fourth Amendment cases blending technology and privacy in a decade, the justices ruled unanimously in January that the authorities need a warrant to affix a GPS device to a vehicle to track its every move. The decision, in a case brought by a convicted drug dealer whose life sentence was overturned, was a blow to the Obama administration, which had argued that Americans have no expectation of privacy in their public movements. While the decision was unanimous, the five justices who controlled the decision, led by Justin Antonin Scalia, said the mere act of affixing the device to the car amounted to a search and demanded a probable-cause warrant. The Justice Department has disabled as many as 3,000 GPS trackers in the decision’s aftermath.
Actually on this case I believe the LE officers went into the garage where the car was parked and installed a GPS on it and that is where they messed up. Before that, if a car was parked in a parking lot, LE could place the device on it whenever they wanted. Actually, where they messed up was they DID get a warrant, good for 10 days in D.C. They installed it on day 11 in Maryland. Clearly, LE knew a warrant was required, got one, but screwed the pooch. This is why I say the rules are easy to follow, it's bonehead LE guys and girls that do stupid stuff. Also makes the argument that a warrant wasn't required - when you actually got one - much harder to make Just skimming through the opinion, don't think the location of the car (it was a public parking lot) was relevant Edited by ChrisM 2012-12-13 3:16 PM |
| 2012-12-13 3:15 PM in reply to: #4534284 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 3:09 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-13 3:07 PM I dont think so. You can't indefinitely place surveillance someone without a warrant. You can't bug their phone indefinitely without a warrant. There is an implied right to privacy, which is what protects us from the government watching us 24/7 like they do in England. Again....you left leaning puppet.....we're talking about public stuff. Why do you tree-hugging hippie types keep bringing your argument back to private matters. Holy Bejebus....it's like talking to a 3rd grader. I'm also talking about public surveillance. Geesh it's like talking to a lobotomized monkey. Except without the cute little nose. |
| 2012-12-13 3:23 PM in reply to: #4534300 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? mr2tony - 2012-12-13 3:15 PM bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 3:09 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-13 3:07 PM I dont think so. You can't indefinitely place surveillance someone without a warrant. You can't bug their phone indefinitely without a warrant. There is an implied right to privacy, which is what protects us from the government watching us 24/7 like they do in England. Again....you left leaning puppet.....we're talking about public stuff. Why do you tree-hugging hippie types keep bringing your argument back to private matters. Holy Bejebus....it's like talking to a 3rd grader. I'm also talking about public surveillance. Geesh it's like talking to a lobotomized monkey. Except without the cute little nose. But only you and the other socialist are talking about private matters. I'm trying to stick to the initial post. You, however, seem to think that since your guy is in Office, that you can talk about whatever you want and still have a valid point. You can't. It doesn't work like that. Don't try to change the subject when you are losing an arguement. |
| 2012-12-13 3:24 PM in reply to: #4534324 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 3:23 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-13 3:15 PM bradleyd3 - 2012-12-13 3:09 PM mr2tony - 2012-12-13 3:07 PM I dont think so. You can't indefinitely place surveillance someone without a warrant. You can't bug their phone indefinitely without a warrant. There is an implied right to privacy, which is what protects us from the government watching us 24/7 like they do in England. Again....you left leaning puppet.....we're talking about public stuff. Why do you tree-hugging hippie types keep bringing your argument back to private matters. Holy Bejebus....it's like talking to a 3rd grader. I'm also talking about public surveillance. Geesh it's like talking to a lobotomized monkey. Except without the cute little nose. But only you and the other socialist are talking about private matters. I'm trying to stick to the initial post. You, however, seem to think that since your guy is in Office, that you can talk about whatever you want and still have a valid point. You can't. It doesn't work like that. Don't try to change the subject when you are losing an arguement. Don't get mad because you can't legally oppress the poor and build a wall around the U.S., teabagger. |
| 2012-12-13 3:27 PM in reply to: #4534327 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? mr2tony - 2012-12-13 3:24 PM Don't get mad because you can't legally oppress the poor and build a wall around the U.S., teabagger. Don't take my jobs then I won't have to build a wall. Work for what I tell you you're worth and don't complain, then I won't have to oppress you. Simple. |
| 2012-12-13 3:31 PM in reply to: #4533735 |
Pro 5761 Bartlett, TN | Subject: RE: Where is the outrage again? Also if you want privacy, do not throw anything out on the curb for trash pickup! |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK