In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.
Wonder if that includes his phone, his kids phones, his wife's phone, Congresspeople's phones, Senator's phones... or is it just for the other Americans. It's amazing his administration would argue that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's bullshit. If Americans have no expecation of privacy, then any person can hack into the cell phone and listen to calls. If he limits it to cell phone location (he won't be able to, a signal is a signal is a signal... if its ok to intercept the signal, its ok to do whatever you want with it), then anyone can hack the positional aspect of the cell and use it to track anyone. That technology already exists, and has existed for some time.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
I will side with the administration. I fail to see how one can expect privacy when your conversation is being handled by a 3rd party. IMO the only time you have an expectation of privacy is when something is.......private.
Privacy of location is interesting. Still, I'd argue that a company has the right to refuse the government anything it wants to without a warrant and has the right to actively prevent warrentless government interference.
Kulaf wrote:I will side with the administration. I fail to see how one can expect privacy when your conversation is being handled by a 3rd party. IMO the only time you have an expectation of privacy is when something is.......private.
Telephone conversations are handled by a third party, sometimes several if you are calling long distance. Yet listening in to a phone conversation or even trying to locate the caller WITHOUT a warrant will get you several years in Club Fed. Your reason doesn't make sense.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Fallakin Kuvari wrote:So you shouldn't expect privacy when you're sending confidential documents through the mail? A 3rd party is handling it at that point.
And that is why you seal the envelope. It dates back to the old wax seals of old. It is an attempt to ensure that your correspondance is not read by the carrier.
Kulaf wrote:I will side with the administration. I fail to see how one can expect privacy when your conversation is being handled by a 3rd party. IMO the only time you have an expectation of privacy is when something is.......private.
Telephone conversations are handled by a third party, sometimes several if you are calling long distance. Yet listening in to a phone conversation or even trying to locate the caller WITHOUT a warrant will get you several years in Club Fed. Your reason doesn't make sense.
My reasoning makes perfect sense. It is just at odds with current law. If somehow I was able to intercept satalite transmissions and decode it am I breaking the law? The signal is right there being beamed out to anyone willing to listen.
Fallakin Kuvari wrote:So you shouldn't expect privacy when you're sending confidential documents through the mail? A 3rd party is handling it at that point.
And that is why you seal the envelope. It dates back to the old wax seals of old. It is an attempt to ensure that your correspondance is not read by the carrier.
I understand that, but does that mean you still shouldn't expect privacy?
Think of your contract with the phone companies as a wax seal. With the government breaching any sort of privacy clause that may be in there wouldn't that essentially be "opening your letter" in terms of your contract? What's to stop them from opening mail and resealing it?
Fallakin Kuvari wrote:So you shouldn't expect privacy when you're sending confidential documents through the mail? A 3rd party is handling it at that point.
And that is why you seal the envelope. It dates back to the old wax seals of old. It is an attempt to ensure that your correspondance is not read by the carrier.
I understand that, but does that mean you still shouldn't expect privacy?
Think of your contract with the phone companies as a wax seal. With the government breaching any sort of privacy clause that may be in there wouldn't that essentially be "opening your letter" in terms of your contract? What's to stop them from opening mail and resealing it?
Think back to manually connected phone calls where "Madge" the opperator could listen in on any call she wanted. Think back to party lines where multiple residences had to share the same phone.
Regardless of the "expectation of privacy" argument, can someone explain why it's too much to ask that the Government gets a warrant before performing a wiretap or having a phone company divulge information about their customers?
I would think the arguement would be about who's information is being seized. These are records maintained by the phone company......they do not belong to the caller.
Kulaf wrote:I will side with the administration. I fail to see how one can expect privacy when your conversation is being handled by a 3rd party. IMO the only time you have an expectation of privacy is when something is.......private.
Telephone conversations are handled by a third party, sometimes several if you are calling long distance. Yet listening in to a phone conversation or even trying to locate the caller WITHOUT a warrant will get you several years in Club Fed. Your reason doesn't make sense.
My reasoning makes perfect sense. It is just at odds with current law. If somehow I was able to intercept satalite transmissions and decode it am I breaking the law? The signal is right there being beamed out to anyone willing to listen.
As a matter of fact, you are breaking the law if you intercept and decode satellite communications. DirecTv went after a bunch of people who were doing exactly that. Also, expectations of privacy aren't really a matter of contractual obligation or technical complexity.. they are assumptions about privacy made by a reasonable person. Any reasonable person would assume that a phone call, whether from a landline or a cell phone, has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Just as they assume they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their own homes, even though sound vibrations can be picked up at the windows, amplified, and recorded (which will also get you tossed in jail)
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
You people are funny when you talk about privacy like you expect some in a post-9/11 world.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Partha wrote:You people are funny when you talk about privacy like you expect some in a post-9/11 world.
That sounds like you're ready to bend over and let the government dryhole you because of the "post 9/11 world." Are you ready to give up your rights because some extremists managed to score a hit on us? Is that all it takes for you to surrender?
You must come from a French lineage.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Nah, I just remember you guys when Captain Clueless was running things and we were discussing the legality and justifications for the president's wireless wiretapping. At least Kulaf is consistent. You're just oblivious.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Partha wrote:Nah, I just remember you guys when Captain Clueless was running things and we were discussing the legality and justifications for the president's wireless wiretapping. At least Kulaf is consistent. You're just oblivious.
OK.. that's within the timefrme of the board. Please link to any post I made supporting any aspect of the US government engaging in warrentless wiretapping. I dunno whats up with you lately Partha, but up until the last 6 months or so you haven't been known for fabrication. Wish I could say differently now.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Partha wrote:
NOW can we impeach the motherfucker? Last I heard, breaking Constitutional Amendments was a high crime, or at least a misdemeanor.
Which one did he break, Partha?
You never made any disapproving noises in Kulaf or Jecks' direction those long 4 years we fought over this stuff on the board, either. You certainly didn't seem to give enough of a damn to accuse those two of allowing Bush to dryhole them. Getting all affronted NOW is just another bit of you trying desperately to bash Obama. If you really care about your personal rights, Embar, you should do like I told Jecks all those years ago - try being a trendsetter once and not JUST when the other guy's in power.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
I think Im on record plenty of times speaking out against warrantless wiretapping. If you'd look, you'd see.
But in case your Search function on this board isn't working, is a thread where I put my position out there, and specifically state I think Bush broke the law. Doesn't get any more clear than that.
1) You spent half the venom you used on this thread decrying it during the preceding four years. (Hint: You didn't.)
2) You were evenhanded in your criticism of those who supported it then, and even those who support it now. (Hint: You didn't and don't.)
Since you haven't shown such consistency in those four years, it's fairly obvious that the only reason you're bitching now is because Obama is president and not Bush.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
