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

Jiggyfly · May 29, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
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 says as the extreme measures enacted by 911 having been increasing.

These measures are infringing on the 4th amendment how is that not a personal freedom?

Jiggyfly · May 29, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Neither of which will be as dictatorial inclined as Obama.

And you know this how?

Trump has already said he is willing to break the law by implementing the killing of families of suspected terrorist and the use of torture as he sees fit.

He has also said he would ignore debt payments "just because" going against the full faith and credit act.

That sounds pretty dictatorial to me

L.T. Fan · May 29, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
He says as the extreme measures enacted by 911 having been increasing.

These measures are infringing on the 4th amendment how is that not a personal freedom?

Did you forget we are talking emails? Obviously they are not considered personal property so take your argument to the courts and Congress. They are the ones who have made that determination.

Jiggyfly · May 29, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Did you forget we are talking emails? Obviously they are not considered personal property so take your argument to the courts and Congress. They are the ones who have made that determination.

Since when are emails not personal property?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_privacy

Protection under the United States constitution[edit]
The Fourth Amendment of the US constitution provides that “[T]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” This Amendment guarantees the privacy, dignity, and security of persons against certain arbitrary and invasive acts by officers of the government or those acting at their direction. Fourth amendment is often envied to protect the privacy rights against government activities.

Protection under state constitutions[edit]
State constitutions in at least 10 states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina and Washington) grant individuals an explicit right to privacy. The privacy protections afforded by some of these states mirrors the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution but often add more specific references to privacy. Further, general constitutional provisions in other states have also been interpreted by courts to have established privacy rights of various types. Like the rights under the US constitution, the privacy rights under the state constitution also usually extend to protection from the actions of state governments, not private organizations.
In 1972, California amended Article I, Section 1 of its state constitution to include privacy protections.[8] A California appellate court then held that the state’s right of privacy applied to both public and private sector interests.[9] Further in Soroka v. Dayton Hudson Corp., the California Court of Appeals reaffirmed this view and held that an employer may not invade the privacy of its employees absent a "compelling interest".[10]
In August 2014, Missouri became the first state to provide explicit constitutional (art. I, § 15) protection from unreasonable searches and seizures for electronic communications or data, such as that found on cell phones and other electronic devices.[11]

The real-time interception of contents of electronic communication is prohibited under the wiretap act,[12] while the Pen Register Act [12] provides protection for the interception of the non-content part of the electronic communication. The "From" and "To" fields along with the IP address of the sender/receiver have been considered as non-content information,[13] while the subject has been considered as the content.[14] Once the email is stored on a computer (email server/user computer), it is protected from unauthorized access under the Stored Communications Act (Title II of Electronic Communications Privacy Act).[15]

And then you have the simple fact that if it was not against the law the senate would not need to be introducing a bill. :shrug

townsend · May 29, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Did you forget we are talking emails? Obviously they are not considered personal property so take your argument to the courts and Congress. They are the ones who have made that determination.

Why aren't they other than for the convenience of law enforcement who would like to bypass all our civil rights if given the opportunity? Is being scrawled on a piece of paper somehow make a letter more private?

No, this is meaningless hair splitting to get around common sense. If the population wasn't expecting a certain level of privacy when they were sending emails, they wouldn't be emails, they'd be message board posts.

It's a strategic contrivance, that attempts to end around constitutional protections, part of a consistent and a conserted effort by government to take away those rights, that has been going on since they were first minted.

The same bullshit happened with wiretaps before this, it'll happen again once we are allowed to broadcast out thoughts, and when it does, someone will tsk tsk and say that it's important we make minds readable so that we can be safer.

Plan9Misfit · May 29, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Did you forget we are talking emails? Obviously they are not considered personal property so take your argument to the courts and Congress. They are the ones who have made that determination.

Emails are indeed personal property as well as intellectual property. Try again.

Kbrown · May 29, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Did you forget we are talking emails? Obviously they are not considered personal property so take your argument to the courts and Congress. They are the ones who have made that determination.

This argument, to put it kindly, is a fallacy. That the courts and Congress are wrong is precisely what we are saying. Combine that with the notion that Obama is a dictator, while invasive policies endorsed by his administration are just fine, and I don't really know what to say.

I kind of see why you and Jiggy get into a semi-daily argument over semantics.

L.T. Fan · May 29, 2016

Well why don't all you guys take your arguments you posted here to Congress and convince them. I can't help you with your googled responses.

Jiggyfly · May 29, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
Well why don't all you guys take your arguments you posted here to Congress and convince them. I can't help you with your googled responses.

What does that even mean?

You can't help with the actual facts?

You were wrong about email being private property, it's as simple as that.

Kbrown · May 29, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
What does that even mean?

You can't help with the actual facts?

You were wrong about email being private property, it's as simple as that.

If you truly cared, you would be making speeches on the floor of the Senate!

Or at least voting in new people. But only people from the two main parties. Don't go throwing your vote away.

L.T. Fan · May 29, 2016

Kbrown said:
This argument, to put it kindly, is a fallacy. That the courts and Congress are wrong is precisely what we are saying. Combine that with the notion that Obama is a dictator, while invasive policies endorsed by his administration are just fine, and I don't really know what to say.

I kind of see why you and Jiggy get into a semi-daily argument over semantics.

Well is anything I said inaccurate? It is the Obama administration who is currently calling the shots on national security and it is Congress who is floating this proposal? It's their position who I also think is being done via the proposed bill. I happen to agree that at this time it is needed. I am not as panicked as some but maybe it's because of my governmental background in investigative processes. Either way it will likely be another massaging of the constitutional arguments that arise with groups that are trying to govern.

Plan9Misfit · May 29, 2016

Kbrown said:
If you truly cared, you would be making speeches on the floor of the Senate!

Or at least voting in new people. But only people from the two main parties. Don't go throwing your vote away.

Voting for either Republicans or Democrats merely continues the same rut.

L.T. Fan · May 29, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
What does that even mean?

You can't help with the actual facts?

You were wrong about email being private property, it's as simple as that.

I believe I said that apparently the courts and congress feel like e mails are not private property.

townsend · May 29, 2016

Plan9Misfit said:
Voting for either Republicans or Democrats merely continues the same rut.

There's part of me that believes that Gary Johnson could build up enough steam to take
A run at it.

It's a pie in the sky dream, but with the two most disliked candidates in history, I don't think there's a better opportunity.

Kbrown · May 29, 2016

townsend said:
There's part of me that believes that Gary Johnson could build up enough steam to take
A run at it.

It's a pie in the sky dream, but with the two most disliked candidates in history, I don't think there's a better opportunity.

Gary Johnson has no chance. What he does have a chance of doing is drawing in enough disillusioned voters to at least make people pay attention to him.

townsend · May 29, 2016

Kbrown said:
Gary Johnson has no chance. What he does have a chance of doing is drawing in enough disillusioned voters to at least make people pay attention to him.

At the very least he can speak for the individual liberties that aren't particularly important to either main party.

Part of me wonders if Trump might lose a lot of his Tea Party backing to Johnson, if he's allowed to enter the debate. There's still a lot of #nevertrump sentiment in the party. A conservative governor with a proven track record might appeal more to the religious right, and mainstream conservatives.

The question is whether the media will give him the necessary push. Guys like Ron and Rand were actively buried by media during their presidential campaigns.

Plan9Misfit · May 30, 2016

Kbrown said:
Gary Johnson has no chance. What he does have a chance of doing is drawing in enough disillusioned voters to at least make people pay attention to him.

All things considered, that's all any third party candidate can hope for. The system is gamed/rigged in such a way that only a Democrat or Republican can win, so liberty and a real freedom of choice always loses.

Cowboysrock55 · May 30, 2016

townsend said:
There's part of me that believes that Gary Johnson could build up enough steam to take
A run at it.

It's a pie in the sky dream, but with the two most disliked candidates in history, I don't think there's a better opportunity.

That was sort of my thought. If the system is ever going to change a year where a lot of Republicans and Democrats despise their own candidate would be the year to do it. I'm just not sure the coting base is ready for it yet. I think it is in the future though as younger generations are open to other parties besides just Republicans and Democrats.

Jiggyfly · May 30, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
I believe I said that apparently the courts and congress feel like e-mails are not private property.

The courts and congress have actually passed and upheld laws saying they are.

What is your point?

L.T. Fan · May 30, 2016

Jiggyfly said:
The courts and congress have actually passed and upheld laws saying they are.

What is your point?

What's yours? If the bill passes then it's all mute so apparently the lawmakers pushing the bill do not regard emails as being something that is valid as personal property.

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

Banned

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Banned

Appreciate The Hate

Not So New Member

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Not So New Member

I'm Easy If You Are

Appreciate The Hate

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Not So New Member

Banned

Appreciate The Hate

Super Moderator

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are