Senate bill would let FBI read your emails without a court order

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Yet when this his argument is used for gun safety it's an assault on the 2nd amendment.
:lol No doubt. Even when we try to pass common sense laws to make it harder for retards and psychopaths to get guns, all the fucking rubes collectively shit themselves. But hey, government, help yourself to looking through my computer whenever you feel the need.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,834
I have my doubts that any of your e mails will be read.
That's not the point. The point is that the 4th Amendment prohibits the search and seizure of property without a warrant or probable cause. This bill allows them to circumvent probable cause. If you can't understand that it's a constitutional / civil liberties issue, then you're missing the point.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,834
:lol No doubt. Even when we try to pass common sense laws to make it harder for retards and psychopaths to get guns, all the fucking rubes collectively shit themselves. But hey, government, help yourself to looking through my computer whenever you feel the need.
Why should we look to pass "common sense gun laws" when we already have plenty of them currently in place? Shouldn't we try enforcing the ones we have before looking to pass more which will also likely be ignored?

On top of that, in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, the gun laws in place worked, but he was still able to commit the crime. Lanza tried to buy a gun both in a brick and mortar store and online and was rejected both times. Yet, he managed to get his hands on a weapon, anyway. Why? Because he murdered his mother, stole her weapons, and went on a shooting spree. So, please explain how a "common sense gun law" would prevent that. All it would do is further challenge law abiding people from obtaining firearms.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
That's not the point. The point is that the 4th Amendment prohibits the search and seizure of property without a warrant or probable cause. This bill allows them to circumvent probable cause. If you can't understand that it's a constitutional / civil liberties issue, then you're missing the point.
You left out the word unreasonable.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
:lol No doubt. Even when we try to pass common sense laws to make it harder for retards and psychopaths to get guns, all the fucking rubes collectively shit themselves. But hey, government, help yourself to looking through my computer whenever you feel the need.
Use the gun example for someone else. You have not heard any position on guns from me. Chances are you never will. I have no preferences either way. I am neutral on that subject.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,834
You left out the word unreasonable.
Probable cause is still required, followed by oath or affirmation in order TO OBTAIN A WARRANT. Meaning, they can't just do it and hide behind the "national security" crap. They need a warrant. This bill would eliminate that, and thus undermine our 4th Amendment rights.

"Amendment IV

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."
 
Last edited:

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Probable cause is still required, followed by oath or affirmation. Meaning, they can't just do it and hide behind the "national security" crap.

"Amendment IV

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."
Apparently they can.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,834
Apparently they can.
No, they can't. But people like you are perfectly fine with it. I'm not even sure what's worse; a government openly stripping its people of its constitutionally granted rights, or the paranoid idiots in the population happily accepting it.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
No, they can't. But people like you are perfectly fine with it. I'm not even sure what's worse; a government openly stripping its people of its constitutionally granted rights, or the paranoid idiots in the population happily accepting it.
I think the difference of opinion lies with the thought process that an e mail is personal property. Apparently since it is essentially an electronic communication and goes out over public transmission resources coupled with the fact that it is not considered privileged, it is therefore seemingly subject to accessibility and is reviewable. The courts will have to rule them as private/privileged communication and if they do then there is a basis for probable cause. At least that is the way it seems to shake out at the moment.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
No, they can't. But people like you are perfectly fine with it. I'm not even sure what's worse; a government openly stripping its people of its constitutionally granted rights, or the paranoid idiots in the population happily accepting it.
keep in mind this guy defended the Japanese internment. He's not uncomfortable with tyranny, I guess he's led a charmed enough life that he's never had to fear gov't oppression.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
keep in mind this guy defended the Japanese internment. He's not uncomfortable with tyranny, I guess he's led a charmed enough life that he's never had to fear gov't oppression.
Good grief! Do you keep journals on people? That's rather amusing or disturbing. I will decide later.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
No, they can't. But people like you are perfectly fine with it. I'm not even sure what's worse; a government openly stripping its people of its constitutionally granted rights, or the paranoid idiots in the population happily accepting it.
You think I'm paranoid? Seems to me you are the one thinking someone wants to sneak up on you.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,834
You think I'm paranoid? Seems to me you are the one thinking someone wants to sneak up on you.
No, I'm simply a man who actually wants to keep the liberties I am provided as outlined in the Constitution, and don't believe that "national security" is a viable excuse for the government to unilaterally take them away. Apparently, you don't share that and are perfectly fine with the government using authoritarian tactics to unlawfully seize and rescind liberties which you don't deem important. Well, don't go crying foul when it starts taking ones you do care about, because it will.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
No, I'm simply a man who actually wants to keep the liberties I am provided as outlined in the Constitution, and don't believe that "national security" is a viable excuse for the government to unilaterally take them away. Apparently, you don't share that and are perfectly fine with the government using authoritarian tactics to unlawfully seize and rescind liberties which you don't deem important. Well, don't go crying foul when it starts taking ones you do care about, because it will.
When you loose a liberty then make all the noise you want but in the meantime all this bemoaning is rhetorical and frantic dialogue over something that will have zero effect on virtually the entire population. Sometimes things have to happen but in the meantime my money says none of us will ever feel any effect of this but it also could maybe save someone's life. That's a worthwhile effort in my books.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
When you loose a liberty then make all the noise you want but in the meantime all this bemoaning is rhetorical and frantic dialogue over something that will have zero effect on virtually the entire population. Sometimes things have to happen but in the meantime my money says none of us will ever feel any effect of this but it also could maybe save someone's life. That's a worthwhile effort in my books.
Wait until a tyrant comes along and uses all these creeping powers for evil, and THEN try to roll back decades of precedent. Great plan.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
All citizens are asking for is that the government follow the rules that were created to regulate and limit its powers.

I doubt authoritarians would be so cavalier for individuals to ignore the law, because they perceive it to be for the greater good.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
All citizens are asking for is that the government follow the rules that were make for it to follow.

I doubt authoritarians would be so cavalier for individuals to ignore the law, because they perceive it to be for the greater good.
By the time these new rules are turned against law-abiding people, the definition of "law-abiding" will have evolved, and few will have noticed it.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Wait until a tyrant comes along and uses all these creeping powers for evil, and THEN try to roll back decades of precedent. Great plan.
It will be a while. The current Chief Executive is leaving and maybe sanity will return. Seriously though history indicates that when extreme measures have had to be taken things are rolled back after the crisis abated. This is a situational move and will probably go away if and when the circumstances change. Personal freedoms aren't being infringed by this move and I don't see any would be dictators on the horizon.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
It will be a while. The current Chief Executive is leaving and maybe sanity will return. Seriously though history indicates that when extreme measures have had to be taken things are rolled back after the crisis abated. This is a situational move and will probably go away if and when the circumstances change. Personal freedoms aren't being infringed by this move and I don't see any would be dictators on the horizon.
He said, as the American people awaited an election between two certifiable turds.
 
Top Bottom