3 ms·

I'm not constitutional scholar but text just says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable sea

by tlogan 13y ago

I'm not constitutional scholar but text just says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated". In other words, I have right that my things are not subject of unreasonable search (and fishing expedition searching for patterns seems unreasonable - why do they think I might be a terrorist or connected with terrorists?). I don't care whether it will used against me or not but my right is that gov does not do that without warrant.

ewoodrich 13y ago
But what are intangible phone records? Are they "persons, houses, or papers"? Probably not. Maybe they're "effects", but that still would historically suggest physical property. However, the Supreme Court has clarified these issues in a number of decisions, which is why our law is primarily based on judicial precedent, and not literal interpretation. That may or not be a good thing, but it's the way our legal system is in fact designed to work.
- tlogan 13y ago
  Yes - we did have "weird" interpretation of our constitution. Like putting of Japanese Americans in concentration camps (the Supreme Court called it "military necessity"). But eventually public perception changed and the interpretation of our constitution was corrected. So as first step I want to hear from Supreme Court whether this is constitutional. But NSA says that what they are doing is secret, so ...
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Bits are "papers" - then the only mechanism for storing information.
- RockyMcNuts 13y ago
  I think one weird part NSA seems to rely on is... what constitutes a search? Intelligence testimony seems to have implied they thought they could hoover up all this information, and as long as only machines look at it, and when humans do, they have a 51% belief it's a foreign person <wink, wink> and do 'minimization' when it's not <wink, wink>, it's constitutional. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/director-national-intelligences-word-games-explained-how-government-deceived https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/director-national-inte... information is considered to be “collected” only after it has been “received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component” Of course, they also think they can lie to Congress, after being warned in advance about the question, being given a chance to correct it after the testimony, and say they didn't think about this particular activity, and gave the 'least untruthful answer'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/james-clapper-senate-erroneous http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/james-clapper-se... So I would say we need to have an open debate about exactly what they're doing, and have the Supreme Court, whose job it is, define what those terms mean and what they can do, instead of letting them make it up as they go along, and then lie about it.
jmccree 13y ago
The constitution also says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", but try walking down a street in DC bearing arms. It seems the current federal view is that the constitution is a document to be worked around, not respected and followed.

by tlogan 13y ago

ewoodrich 13y ago

But what are intangible phone records? Are they "persons, houses, or papers"? Probably not. Maybe they're "effects", but that still would historically suggest physical property. However, the Supreme Court has clarified these issues in a number of decisions, which is why our law is primarily based on judicial precedent, and not literal interpretation. That may or not be a good thing, but it's the way our legal system is in fact designed to work.

tlogan 13y ago
Yes - we did have "weird" interpretation of our constitution. Like putting of Japanese Americans in concentration camps (the Supreme Court called it "military necessity"). But eventually public perception changed and the interpretation of our constitution was corrected. So as first step I want to hear from Supreme Court whether this is constitutional. But NSA says that what they are doing is secret, so ...
dllthomas 13y ago
Bits are "papers" - then the only mechanism for storing information.
RockyMcNuts 13y ago
I think one weird part NSA seems to rely on is... what constitutes a search? Intelligence testimony seems to have implied they thought they could hoover up all this information, and as long as only machines look at it, and when humans do, they have a 51% belief it's a foreign person <wink, wink> and do 'minimization' when it's not <wink, wink>, it's constitutional. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/director-national-intelligences-word-games-explained-how-government-deceived https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/director-national-inte... information is considered to be “collected” only after it has been “received for use by an employee of a DoD intelligence component” Of course, they also think they can lie to Congress, after being warned in advance about the question, being given a chance to correct it after the testimony, and say they didn't think about this particular activity, and gave the 'least untruthful answer'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/james-clapper-senate-erroneous http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/james-clapper-se... So I would say we need to have an open debate about exactly what they're doing, and have the Supreme Court, whose job it is, define what those terms mean and what they can do, instead of letting them make it up as they go along, and then lie about it.

jmccree 13y ago

The constitution also says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", but try walking down a street in DC bearing arms. It seems the current federal view is that the constitution is a document to be worked around, not respected and followed.