Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision

Author Topic: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision  (Read 59965 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Look what the MSM is hiding...



SCOTUS OKs Secret Broad Based Search of All Employees Electric Transmissions by Employer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_bi_ge/us_supreme_court_electronic_privacy_4
Thu Jun 17, 11:45 am ET

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the search of a police officer's personal, sometimes sexually explicit, messages on a government-owned pager, saying it did not violate his constitutional rights.

The court was unanimous in reversing a federal appeals court ruling that sided with the Ontario, Calif., SWAT team officer.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the court that the officer, Sgt. Jeff Quon, could not assume "that his messages were in all circumstances immune from scrutiny."

But Kennedy said the court purposely avoided a broader ruling about employees' expectations of privacy when using equipment provided by their employers because of rapid and unpredictable changes in technology.

The Ontario department discovered many personal messages, including some that were said to be sexually explicit, when it decided to audit text message usage to see whether SWAT team officers were using their pagers too often for personal reasons.

Many employers tell workers there is no guarantee of privacy in anything sent over their company- or government-provided computers, cell phones or pagers.

Ontario has a similar policy, but a police official also informally told officers that no one would audit their text messages if the officers personally paid for charges above a monthly allowance.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the informal policy was enough to give the officers a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their text messages and establish that their constitutional rights had been violated.

Kennedy said that it is true that many employers accept or tolerate personal communications on company time and equipment. But he suggested that employees who want to avoid the potential embarrassment of having those communications revealed might "want to purchase and pay for their own" cell phones and other devices.

Joshua Dressler, an Ohio State University law professor, said the court probably was wise to rule narrowly.

"With modern technology quickly moving in directions the justices could not have imagined even a decade ago, it is increasingly obvious that the Supreme Court will need to determine the limits of government surveillance of our cell phone conversations, text messages, and other non-wire transmissions," Dressler said.



This completely insane ruling is another example of the direction of SCOTUS...corporatistic tyranny over the constitution is the mandate from the banksters who sit above the occupied puppet anti-government.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
every phone call and text message has been screened by Echelon and satellites and supercomputers for decades. This looks like a message from the judicial branch that its business as usual. Didja really think SWAT was immune from big brother's viewscreens?
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341



  Yes another insane ruling from these Anti-Bill of Rights judges.  It is a direct hit on the 4th.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline rawiron1

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,032
So I guess when they use their mouths on a public street to communicate there is no expectation of privacy either since when they are on the clock that mouth becomes a government mouth.

Jason
Jason the Fed

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
This will probably be an unpopular post, but I would have to agree with SCOTUS on this one.  I fail to see how it is a violation of anyone's rights to monitor the use of government or company owned equipment in any way.

Companies and government agencies may set up rules for the manner, time and purpose for which company/agency equipment may be used.  Monitoring their equipment to ensure those rules are followed is hardly a violation of anyone's rights.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
This will probably be an unpopular post, but I would have to agree with SCOTUS on this one.  I fail to see how it is a violation of anyone's rights to monitor the use of government or company owned equipment in any way.

Companies and government agencies may set up rules for the manner, time and purpose for which company/agency equipment may be used.  Monitoring their equipment to ensure those rules are followed is hardly a violation of anyone's rights.

The rules were not set up. He was tricked (as well as every other human) into thinking that these communications were similar to talking to a friend on a corner when they were really a wholly owned property of the corporation. There was no risk to the public to warrant a violation of the entire country's civil liberties. This speaks to an even larger issue which is...what is communication in general. Soon, all government employees will require bluetooth type earpieces. They are owned by the Employer. They can be turned on 24/7 to capture every single thing you ever say. All of those communications will be owned by the feudal corporatists.

And the plan is to have thought helmets to better interact with colleagues. Then of course these thought helmets will capture all thoughts that also will be owned by the feudalists. And we all know the final plan which is microchips in the brain. Basically at that point, the brain is not owned by you, it is owned by the feudalists. This is what everyone needs to know, the brain will be owned by the corporation because they have a nanoparticle in it. This is the same rational for justifying Monsanto's control over all food and all future food resources.

Anyone who thinks this 9-0 vote is justified should do very, very, very serious research into the future of communications for corporations, tools used for the sake of a person's job. See they give you a computer, laptop and tell you you must use it...then they can use the camera and microphone to record everything plus they own every keystroke, every image, etc. Then if you complain that they are using the camera to take videos of you at night in your bedroom they get to say it is a corporate owned product and you forgo your inalienable 4th amendment rights.

Most jobs will require a communication device that you cannot turn off and which records your location, your sounds, your smells, your image, video, etc.

This will be stored in Data Warehouses and indexed. This is the "final cut" owned by the fuedalists.

That is why SCOTUS voted this way, they had to, they were told to, this is part of a very sinister agenda and IMO must be exposed.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline KI4BNC

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
I have to agree with monkeypuppet and digler-for different reasons:
monkeypuppet is right-government property
also digler is right-it is the foot in the door-The precedent.

          baby steps.watch this hand, over here(while I slap you with the hand you are not looking at).
those that would give up a little liberty to obtain a little security,deserve neither and will lose both.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
I have to agree with monkeypuppet and digler-for different reasons:
monkeypuppet is right-government property
also digler is right-it is the foot in the door-The precedent.

          baby steps.watch this hand, over here(while I slap you with the hand you are not looking at).

Well i understand the idea about government property, but it is fraud if there is no education on all of the methods that the property is to be used against the individual and their god given civil liberties. The supreme court should know better, it is a complete violation and we are being fed disinformation that such rulings may occur because they are not tech savvy. well they are supreme court justices whose only purpose is to defend the individual from encroachments on the constitution. I also cannot believe that Sotomayor who has been a very dedicated watchdog of corporate power did not dissent.

Just because a corporation gives you a tool, does not mean that tool can in any way infringe on your god given rights. this is a very simple case and the decision should send shockwaves.

But this is to be expected for anyone who has been reading NWO publications like Brzezinski's Between Two Ages...

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=168647.0

This also will tie into behavioral modification and then the corporation will own your new behavior. I mean it really is absurd to say that because the corporation lends you a tool and tells you that tool is to be used for your job that they own everything else that the tool can steal from your very humanity. I am telling you right now that this decision is huge and based on what I have read so far...shocking. I will be reviewing the entire opinion, but so far the justification of: "because the corporation gave it to the employee" is absurd on its face.

That is the most troubling thing about this. We are being forced into a situation of increased dependency on the corporation and/or dependency on the state. What the SCOTUS is saying is that once you take anything by the state/corporation, you have accepted any infringement on your god given rights, even if you are not educated on what they are.

This really is a big deal.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline KI4BNC

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
I guess I am trying to look at it from both sides.
yes if I was gov. and I gave an employee a crackberry I would not want the employee looking at porn.
But I also think that if I was an employee ,once I hit the clock-I am a citizen and the 4th amendment should hold-but again it would be company property and the porn should not be looked at on company property.
My old lady has a company cell phone and my son got her in trouble using her phone to send text messages.Her boss pulls those records a few times a week.
those that would give up a little liberty to obtain a little security,deserve neither and will lose both.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
I guess I am trying to look at it from both sides.
yes if I was gov. and I gave an employee a crackberry I would not want the employee looking at porn.
But I also think that if I was an employee ,once I hit the clock-I am a citizen and the 4th amendment should hold-but again it would be company property and the porn should not be looked at on company property.
My old lady has a company cell phone and my son got her in trouble using her phone to send text messages.Her boss pulls those records a few times a week.

porn is different, he was not looking at porn.

But if he was...If an employee spends their time looking at porn on a device provided by the state or while being "on the clock" they can be terminated under various other means. This case was very specific as the employer was granted ownership of all communications, interactions, activity for use at the employer's discretion.

So I have no problem with an employer having a strict code of work ethics, but once that employer then seeks to "own" all information concerning a person's private communications, then this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
The Freedom is wayyy better than the tyranny.

At least this way you can pretend you are free and know exactly which unelected criminals are trashing your constitution.

Offline KI4BNC

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
"So I have no problem with an employer having a strict code of work ethics, but once that employer then seeks to "own" all information concerning a person's private communications, then this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment."

I agree.
those that would give up a little liberty to obtain a little security,deserve neither and will lose both.

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
So I have no problem with an employer having a strict code of work ethics, but once that employer then seeks to "own" all information concerning a person's private communications, then this is a direct violation of the 4th amendment.

I completely agree with you one this point, BUT it wasn't about the communication itself, it was about on what device the communications were sent/received.  If this case involved a company/agency claiming dominion over the communications sent to/from an employee's personal device simply because they were on the clock, I would be outraged... but that isn't what this was about.

I do understand the potential implications, though.  Based on this case, telecom companies can now be more open about their disregard for the private nature of communications sent over their networks by subscribers... the potential for abuse in a lot of areas is apparent.

The only way this precedent can be used for good is if it is used to require all government entities and corporations to have policies regarding communications in place.  I must exclude non-incorporated business, though, since they are typically outside statutory jurisdiction.

Imagine the opposite, though.  If SCOTUS ruled that government agencies and businesses had no right to monitor communications sent to/from their equipment, would you be equally upset?  The implications of that would have been just as potentially hazardous to civil liberties.   After all, incorporated entities are seen as "persons" under the law just like we are... a notion with which I am vehemently opposed, btw.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
I completely agree with you one this point, BUT it wasn't about the communication itself, it was about on what device the communications were sent/received.  If this case involved a company/agency claiming dominion over the communications sent to/from an employee's personal device simply because they were on the clock, I would be outraged... but that isn't what this was about.

I do understand the potential implications, though.  Based on this case, telecom companies can now be more open about their disregard for the private nature of communications sent over their networks by subscribers... the potential for abuse in a lot of areas is apparent.

The only way this precedent can be used for good is if it is used to require all government entities and corporations to have policies regarding communications in place.  I must exclude non-incorporated business, though, since they are typically outside statutory jurisdiction.

Imagine the opposite, though.  If SCOTUS ruled that government agencies and businesses had no right to monitor communications sent to/from their equipment, would you be equally upset?  The implications of that would have been just as potentially hazardous to civil liberties.   After all, incorporated entities are seen as "persons" under the law just like we are... a notion with which I am vehemently opposed, btw.

If SCOTUS ruled that government agencies and businesses had no right to monitor communications sent to/from their equipment, would you be equally upset?



THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT WHEN IT CONFLICTS WITH THE 4TH AMENDMENT! WHERE DID THEY GET THIS RIGHT? IT DOES NOT EXIST, WHERE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS THIS EXISTED?

They have the right to protect their interests and if an employee is damaging the reputation of the emplyer, he/she should be properly investigated and if private communications records are required as evidence, they should be properly acquired through proper and legal methods. There is no risk whatsoever to public safety in this case which allows the end of the 4th amendment to 300+ million American citizens.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
If SCOTUS ruled that government agencies and businesses had no right to monitor communications sent to/from their equipment, would you be equally upset?



THEY DO NOT HAVE THIS RIGHT WHEN IT CONFLICTS WITH THE 4TH AMENDMENT! WHERE DID THEY GET THIS RIGHT? IT DOES NOT EXIST, WHERE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND HAS THIS EXISTED?

They have the right to protect their interests and if an employee is damaging the reputation of the emplyer, he/she should be properly investigated and if private communications records are required as evidence, they should be properly acquired through proper and legal methods. There is no risk whatsoever to public safety in this case which allows the end of the 4th amendment to 300+ million American citizens.

The Bill of Rights is a non-comprehensive enumeration of restrictions on the federal government and its agencies only.

"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes."
Opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
The Bill of Rights is a non-comprehensive enumeration of restrictions on the federal government and its agencies only.

"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes."
Opinion of Chief Justice Marshall, Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

There is no such thing as a federal government unto itself, WTF? The so called "federal government" is merely an agent manufactured on behalf of the states. No states, no federal representative. This is the very nature of the 9th and 10th amendment. the bill of rights is for the protection of the individual from infringement by government whether local, federal agent, or international body. the bill of rights were not even needed by the states when the states went to ratify the constitution. when the people found out about this bullshit, they required the bill of rights before they would allow the states to engage in the ratification of the constitution. It took 10 years for the people working with the states to finalize the bill of rights and they are part and parcel with the articles of the constitution.

to say that these protections of inalienable rights against government tyranny are not individual in nature is surreal.

BTW, when was the last time you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights?

Have you ever even heard of it?

They are rapidly removing one of the most important parts of the Bill of Rights, its preamble... How many of you know that the Bill of Rights has a preamble...? It is the enabling clause of the document, which ties it directly to the Constitution... Here it is...

"Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."

--Oldyoti

"One of the main purposes for the control and power of the
Establishment media is to keep the masses deceived and
ignorant about their rights and oppressions of their rights."

~Charles Weisman


All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
There is no such thing as a federal government unto itself, WTF? The so called "federal government" is merely an agent manufactured on behalf of the states. No states, no federal representative. This is the very nature of the 9th and 10th amendment. the bill of rights is for the protection of the individual from infringement by government whether local, federal agent, or international body. the bill of rights were not even needed by the states when the states went to ratify the constitution. when the people found out about this bullshit, they required the bill of rights before they would allow the states to engage in the ratification of the constitution. It took 10 years for the people working with the states to finalize the bill of rights and they are part and parcel with the articles of the constitution.

to say that these protections of inalienable rights against government tyranny are not individual in nature is surreal.

BTW, when was the last time you read the preamble to the Bill of Rights?

Have you ever even heard of it?


Yes, I have.  I am quite familiar with it.  The Bill of Rights was put in to protect the rights of the People and the sovereign States from the General Government created by the U.S. Constitution when exercising its limited powers enumerated therein.

The "government tyranny" which the BoR protects against is that of federal usurpation, not that of the State or local governments.  The several States have their own Constitutions and accompanying restrictions on the abuse of power.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Yes, I have.  I am quite familiar with it.  The Bill of Rights was put in to protect the rights of the People and the sovereign States from the General Government created by the U.S. Constitution when exercising its limited powers enumerated therein.

The "government tyranny" which the BoR protects against is that of federal usurpation, not that of the State or local governments.  The several States have their own Constitutions and accompanying restrictions on the abuse of power.

And the Bill of Rights protects the individual from all government, state or otherwise. BTW, why would then the Supreme Court niot mention states rights as the issue? If your opinion is correct, which I do not believe since rights are given by god and not by a state/states' constitution, why is their no mention of it?

This had nothing to do with states' rights, even though you are interjecting this argument oddly enough. This has to do with civil liberties and protection of the individual from another human being, government, employer, school, etc.

NO ONE CAN VIOLATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT WITHOUT VIOALTING THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline s3d1t0r

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • F̱̹̳̖o̤llow the mon̐ͫ͂̓̊̓͊ë́͐͒̍ȳ̏ͨ̾͆
    • Seditious Blasphemy doth appear here!
THANKS to the SWAT officer for being stupid enough to send and/or receive sexually explicit messages using his employers equipment. You'd have to be pretty dense to do that in the first place, and now, because of this brilliant SWAT officer the argument was forced to go in front of the completely compromised Supreme Court and now here we are.

If that SWAT guy wasn't so reckless, than this issue could have been brought up in the future by somebody who had a chance of winning, with the emphasis on the word "CHANCE".
“go to work, send your kids to school
follow fashion, act normal
walk on the pavement, watch T.V.
save for your old age, obey the law
Repeat after me: I am free

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
THANKS to the SWAT officer for being stupid enough to send and/or receive sexually explicit messages using his employers equipment. You'd have to be pretty dense to do that in the first place, and now, because of this brilliant SWAT officer the argument was forced to go in front of the completely compromised Supreme Court and now here we are.

If that SWAT guy wasn't so reckless, than this issue could have been brought up in the future by somebody who had a chance of winning, with the emphasis on the word "CHANCE".

CORRECT!

But that is the very nature of these rulings. They are now looking to bring up the issue of the crazy guy yelling "god hates fags" while soldiers funerals are going on to challenge free speech. The guy works for the CIA and is paid to provoke issues so insane that people will support SCOTUS to rule against the 1st amendment. If he was not a CIA agent, he would already be in jail for simple disturbing the peace violations and would most likely be in a psych ward. But because he is protected by the Bilderberg intelligence agencies, he will get to the SCOTUS and the SCOTUS will rule "for" the soldiers and "against" him. What that of course means is that the Tavistock project will be a full success in continuing the rape of the constitution. Notice the MSM is also HUSH HUSH about this case which is completely 100% staged at the expense of soldiers' families who are being used by this project as well as the rest of us who will have to deal with the obvious ruling to come: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/god-hates-fags-case-gets-supreme-court-review/blog-275221/ How is this not a government operation: http://americansfortruth.com/uploads/2007/10/fred_phelps_idiotic_911_message.bmp
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
And the Bill of Rights protects the individual from all government, state or otherwise. BTW, why would then the Supreme Court niot mention states rights as the issue? If your opinion is correct, which I do not believe since rights are given by god and not by a state/states' constitution, why is their no mention of it?

This had nothing to do with states' rights, even though you are interjecting this argument oddly enough. This has to do with civil liberties and protection of the individual from another human being, government, employer, school, etc.

NO ONE CAN VIOLATE THE 4TH AMENDMENT WITHOUT VIOALTING THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION.

I'm not saying that rights are granted by states or constitutions, but the protection of those rights, however, is a matter of jurisdiction.  The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a restriction upon the federal government.  Did you bother to read the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall that I linked?  You'll see that this is not my opinion.

And I'm not interjecting states' rights into this.  I'm merely pointing out the purpose of the Bill of Rights.  The U.S. Constitution did not create the State governments.  Therefore, no grants of power nor restrictive provisions relating to the State governments are enumerated therein.  The Bill of Rights is a non-comprehensive enumeration of certain restrictions upon the government created by the Constitution.  The only reason the BoR exists is because the States did not believe the general government would be squarely restricted to its enumerated powers.

A State government agency, local government agency, or even a State-chartered corporation, is not capable of violating the 4th Amendment... or any other enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.  Those restrictions don't apply and one would have to look to the State's Constitution for such protection.

By the way, the "Government" mentioned in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is not a broad all-encompassing term for all governments everywhere... it is a reference to the General Government created by the U.S. Constitution.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline TBPauly

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
    • The World Of Big Pauly
Not to mention....if a corporation, or members of said corporation, say something they later regret, and it is somehow captured on a mobile device with a video, pic, or audio file (not impossible vis a vis the new smartphones of the day)...they can take this ruling and suppress something that might be worth revealing.

Corporations not only own you 24/7, whether you are on the clock or not, but with this ruling, SCOTUS makes them the law.  If a BP incident were to occur years from now and the current rulings aren't overturned, you'd be lucky to hear about it or know about it.
"Let justice be done though the heavens fall."
Jim Garrison, c. 1969

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
Monitoring their equipment to ensure those rules are followed is hardly a violation of anyone's rights.
Every public and private area where humans exist will be under surveillance by MIC owned monitoring equipment to make sure that the public "follows their rules" of bending over for fraudulent national security.  So yes it will be a total violation of everyones rights because there will not be anywhere where military industrial complex surveillance will not be.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
I'm not saying that rights are granted by states or constitutions, but the protection of those rights, however, is a matter of jurisdiction.  The 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a restriction upon the federal government.  Did you bother to read the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall that I linked?  You'll see that this is not my opinion.

And I'm not interjecting states' rights into this.  I'm merely pointing out the purpose of the Bill of Rights.  The U.S. Constitution did not create the State governments.  Therefore, no grants of power nor restrictive provisions relating to the State governments are enumerated therein.  The Bill of Rights is a non-comprehensive enumeration of certain restrictions upon the government created by the Constitution.  The only reason the BoR exists is because the States did not believe the general government would be squarely restricted to its enumerated powers.

A State government agency, local government agency, or even a State-chartered corporation, is not capable of violating the 4th Amendment... or any other enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.  Those restrictions don't apply and one would have to look to the State's Constitution for such protection.

By the way, the "Government" mentioned in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights is not a broad all-encompassing term for all governments everywhere... it is a reference to the General Government created by the U.S. Constitution.


Chief Justice Marshall?

Marshall?

You want me to use Marshall as a basis of understanding the 4th Amendment? Here is the 4th Amendment:

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.

I do not need Marshall to interpret that for me, the people who founded this country spent 10 years deciding on that wording. A chief justice ruling against that wording does not make the wording wrong, it makes him wrong. Although Marshall unconstitutionally ruled against the constitution, it was just more fun for the globalists as it allowed the insane 14th Amendment to be a "solution" to Marshall's planned problem (see how it works):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
The case was particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments. Later Supreme Court rulings would reaffirm this ruling of Barron, most notably United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.



The 14th Amendment amendment was dona as part and parcel to the assassination of Lincoln and the covering up of the true 13th Amandment and 14th Amendment that Lincoln created to actually bestow freedom to all. Instead the international nuts made us all corporate slaves.




As far as the constitution...it is part and parcel with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights which are the "ENABLING DOCUMENTS" for the states' sovereignty and the states' representation abroad. I highly recommend this amazing research as far as what the heck is going on as it relates to the true nature of the constitution and liberty:

Hidden: The REAL 13th Amendment; Will Prosecute & Kill the NWO!!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=113335.0
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Not to mention....if a corporation, or members of said corporation, say something they later regret, and it is somehow captured on a mobile device with a video, pic, or audio file (not impossible vis a vis the new smartphones of the day)...they can take this ruling and suppress something that might be worth revealing.

Corporations not only own you 24/7, whether you are on the clock or not, but with this ruling, SCOTUS makes them the law.  If a BP incident were to occur years from now and the current rulings aren't overturned, you'd be lucky to hear about it or know about it.

Yup, absolutely. They can sue the pants off of you because they own it.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
Chief Justice Marshall?

Marshall?

You want me to use Marshall as a basis of understanding the 4th Amendment? Here is the 4th Amendment:

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.

I do not need Marshall to interpret that for me, the people who founded this country spent 10 years deciding on that wording. A chief justice ruling against that wording does not make the wording wrong, it makes him wrong. Although Marshall unconstitutionally ruled against the constitution, it was just more fun for the globalists as it allowed the insane 14th Amendment to be a "solution" to Marshall's planned problem (see how it works):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore
The case was particularly important in terms of American government because it stated that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights did not restrict the state governments. Later Supreme Court rulings would reaffirm this ruling of Barron, most notably United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.



The 14th Amendment amendment was dona as part and parcel to the assassination of Lincoln and the covering up of the true 13th Amandment and 14th Amendment that Lincoln created to actually bestow freedom to all. Instead the international nuts made us all corporate slaves.




As far as the constitution...it is part and parcel with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights which are the "ENABLING DOCUMENTS" for the states' sovereignty and the states' representation abroad. I highly recommend this amazing research as far as what the heck is going on as it relates to the true nature of the constitution and liberty:

Hidden: The REAL 13th Amendment; Will Prosecute & Kill the NWO!!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=113335.0

Your quote from Wiki is great, actually.  It basically proves my point.  Justice Marshall's OPINION, not ruling, was a reflection on the nature and intent of the Bill of Rights as it pertains rightfully to the General Government created by the document to which it was attached, and the noted distinction that the Bill of Rights was never intended to remove State sovereignty and the People of the States right to self-government.

To apply the restrictions laid out in the Bill of Rights to the States is no different than saying the U.S. Constitution created the States themselves!

Sorry, but the People formed the States by drafting their respecting Constitutions, and their representatives formed the General Government on their behalf... not the other way around.  Local trumps State... State trumps federal.  The back-asswards view as of the last 130 years due to the 14th Amendment has turned this country on its head as cities are now just soul-less entities incorporated into the State... they are FOR PROFIT businesses with shareholders and investments like any other company.

What part of this jurisdictional matter don't you get?

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Your quote from Wiki is great, actually.  It basically proves my point.  Justice Marshall's OPINION, not ruling, was a reflection on the nature and intent of the Bill of Rights as it pertains rightfully to the General Government created by the document to which it was attached, and the noted distinction that the Bill of Rights was never intended to remove State sovereignty and the People of the States right to self-government.

To apply the restrictions laid out in the Bill of Rights to the States is no different than saying the U.S. Constitution created the States themselves!

Sorry, but the People formed the States by drafting their respecting Constitutions, and their representatives formed the General Government on their behalf... not the other way around.  Local trumps State... State trumps federal.  The back-asswards view as of the last 130 years due to the 14th Amendment has turned this country on its head as cities are now just soul-less entities incorporated into the State... they are FOR PROFIT businesses with shareholders and investments like any other company.

What part of this jurisdictional matter don't you get?

the fact that you think Marshall is to be quoted to understand states and individual rights is what I mostly do not get.

what about the declaration of independence don't you get? and what state constitution of the original 13 colonies was against the bill of rights to protect the individual? Are you saying that some of the states declared sovereignty before the declaration of independence?
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
the fact that you think Marshall is to be quoted to understand states and individual rights is what I mostly do not get.

what about the declaration of independence don't you get? and what state constitution of the original 13 colonies was against the bill of rights to protect the individual? Are you saying that some of the states declared sovereignty before the declaration of independence?

That's not what I'm saying at all.  The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.  The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, however, are, and as such have specific purpose.  The Constitution creates a General Government with the limited powers enumerated therein ceded by the States.  The Bill of Rights was attached to ensure that when exercising its limited power, the General Government did not infringe upon the rights of the People or usurp the sovereign powers of the States (which is what you're advocating, btw).

Nothing in the Bill of Rights says anything about restricting the State governments, companies/corporations or individuals in any way.  Read the Preamble again and understand the context of the capitalized word "Government"... it is referring to the General Government created by the 4 page document it is there to attached.

Justice Marshall's opinion was noting the concern of the court's previous error in upholding that non-federal government agencies are bound to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights.  If this were the case at all, then by creating the Constitution itself, the States had already completely handed over their autonomy in all matters, and the People would have then been considered federal citizens.  This wasn't the case then, and it shouldn't be treated as such now.

If your State does not afford similar protections in its State Constitution, I recommend making that happen.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
That's not what I'm saying at all.  The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.  The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, however, are, and as such have specific purpose.  The Constitution creates a General Government with the limited powers enumerated therein ceded by the States.  The Bill of Rights was attached to ensure that when exercising its limited power, the General Government did not infringe upon the rights of the People or usurp the sovereign powers of the States (which is what you're advocating, btw).

Nothing in the Bill of Rights says anything about restricting the State governments, companies/corporations or individuals in any way.  Read the Preamble again and understand the context of the capitalized word "Government"... it is referring to the General Government created by the 4 page document it is there to attached.

Justice Marshall's opinion was noting the concern of the court's previous error in upholding that non-federal government agencies are bound to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights.  If this were the case at all, then by creating the Constitution itself, the States had already completely handed over their autonomy in all matters, and the People would have then been considered federal citizens.  This wasn't the case then, and it shouldn't be treated as such now.

If your State does not afford similar protections in its State Constitution, I recommend making that happen.

I am completely lost. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document? Do you know how many times it is used in SCOTUS rulings? Please read this: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_Declaration_of_Independence_a_legal_document_to_govern_the_US

Perhaps you are confusing federal legislation (US Codes) with the founding documents which relate to all men (even though it took scores of years to get there given the genocide of indians and the continued slavery of immigrants and blacks-an abomination against god if there ever was one). The state cannot inflict tyranny over an individual which violates the bill of rights. If a local cop violates your 4th amendment, what do you do? If you are in a state court and the judge asks you to incriminate yourself, what do you do?

states do not have the power to deny someone of his god given rights.

the state is not above god.

the ruling by marshalls is BS, it makes no sense and was used to provoke until lincolm was assassinated and the corporate slavery 14th amendment came into effect.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
I am completely lost. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document? Do you know how many times it is used in SCOTUS rulings? Please read this: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_the_Declaration_of_Independence_a_legal_document_to_govern_the_US

Perhaps you are confusing federal legislation (US Codes) with the founding documents which relate to all men (even though it took scores of years to get there given the genocide of indians and the continued slavery of immigrants and blacks-an abomination against god if there ever was one). The state cannot inflict tyranny over an individual which violates the bill of rights. If a local cop violates your 4th amendment, what do you do? If you are in a state court and the judge asks you to incriminate yourself, what do you do?

states do not have the power to deny someone of his god given rights.

the state is not above god.

the ruling by marshalls is BS, it makes no sense and was used to provoke until lincolm was assassinated and the corporate slavery 14th amendment came into effect.

I didn't say the State has the power to deny someone their God given rights.  I merely stated that using the 4th Amendment in an argument against a local or state agency's actions isn't necessarily the right way to go.  Are you a "U.S. Citizen"?  Is that not a 14th Amendment "person"?  Would not more appropriate protection from local or State action be the State Constitution?  If the State is unwilling to uphold its own protection against such wrongful actions, then would be the time to get the Supreme Court involved to slap the State back in line since it is not upholding its own laws regarding such protection enacted by its citizens.

Unless you're comfortable with being a "U.S. Citizen" under the 14th Amendment.  Then by all means, I stand corrected in the context of your particular perspective... not for mine, though.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
I didn't say the State has the power to deny someone their God given rights.  I merely stated that using the 4th Amendment in an argument against a local or state agency's actions isn't necessarily the right way to go.  Are you a "U.S. Citizen"?  Is that not a 14th Amendment "person"?  Would not more appropriate protection from local or State action be the State Constitution?  If the State is unwilling to uphold its own protection against such wrongful actions, then would be the time to get the Supreme Court involved to slap the State back in line since it is not upholding its own laws regarding such protection enacted by its citizens.

Unless you're comfortable with being a "U.S. Citizen" under the 14th Amendment.  Then by all means, I stand corrected in the context of your particular perspective... not for mine, though.

Well the SCOTUS got involved on behalf of the state to overrule the 4th amendment in ALL EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE relations. He won his case in a lower court. So the SCOTUS was thrown upon him, he did not petition the SCOTUS. This is the nature of tyranny and the media are not allowed to talk about it.

As a side note, please read the original 13th Amendment which was ratified and Lincoln's 14th Amendment before he was assassinated by the Banksters. That is the reason for the 14th Amendment, it was a coup d'etat just like JFK was. Randomly blasting the 14th Amendment without understanding how it happened allows globalists to make us look like we want to go back to the pre-emancipation days and that is truly ridiculous. Once the original 13th Amedment and Lincoln's 14th Amendment is understood, then the globalist jerkoffs lose the debate each and every time.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
It's simple, the Sovereign States are bound to follow the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. This simple fact is expressed with the words in Article VII (7) that the US Constitution was established between the States.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." - Article VII of the US Constitution

Since the Constitution was established between the States, the States must abide by it's content, as well as the Bill of Rights. Even being sovereign unto themselves, the States cannot violate the agreement they entered into to be a part of the Union. The States and local governments within them cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution or surpress the God-given rights of their citizens.
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people,
it's an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry

>>> Global Gulag Media & Forum <<<

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
It's simple, the Sovereign States are bound to follow the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. This simple fact is expressed with the words in Article VII (7) that the US Constitution was established between the States.

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same." - Article VII of the US Constitution

Since the Constitution was established between the States, the States must abide by it's content, as well as the Bill of Rights. Even being sovereign unto themselves, the States cannot violate the agreement they entered into to be a part of the Union. The States and local governments within them cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution or surpress the God-given rights of their citizens.

I have absolutely no problem with these statements except that to extend the adherence to the Bill of Rights to the State and local governments doesn't even make sense since the term "Government" used in the Preamble is contextually in reference to the newly created General Government.

Article VII also includes the supremacy clause which is of import, but regardless, my point is being ignored completely so I'll abstain from any further discourse on the matter.

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths
w w w . original intent . o r g

The 1911 in .45 ACP... don't leave home without it!  Safety first!!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
I have absolutely no problem with these statements except that to extend the adherence to the Bill of Rights to the State and local governments doesn't even make sense since the term "Government" used in the Preamble is contextually in reference to the newly created General Government.

Article VII also includes the supremacy clause which is of import, but regardless, my point is being ignored completely so I'll abstain from any further discourse on the matter.

Your point was addressed every which way, yet you have not once addressed any of the documented and sources points of history. So far your only argument stems from an anti-constitutional decision by a willfully ignorant justice.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
Your point was addressed every which way, yet you have not once addressed any of the documented and sources points of history. So far your only argument stems from an anti-constitutional decision by a willfully ignorant justice.

You have made no points.

The property did not belong to him.

If someone invited you over to their house, and invite you to take a seat. Do you go over and shit on that seat, then claim you had the right to do so, because they offered to let you use it? When they call the cops demanding you to leave, do you fight back, saying that they are interfering with your liberties?

What about the flip side, wouldn't saying an employer does not have rights to his own property, just as much a violation of rights?

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
You have made no points.

The property did not belong to him.

If someone invited you over to their house, and invite you to take a seat. Do you go over and shit on that seat, then claim you had the right to do so, because they offered to let you use it? When they call the cops demanding you to leave, do you fight back, saying that they are interfering with your liberties?

What about the flip side, wouldn't saying an employer does not have rights to his own property, just as much a violation of rights?


again, that is the point. there is no question about the beeper, or the damaging of property. If he took a shit on the pager it may be similar to your freudean anal phase analogy. But unless I missed something, i do not believe he defacated on said property. And concerning the physical property, there is no dispute. The issue is communications. The property is simply a vhicle for communications. It would be similar to saying that your company laptop is not the only thing that the employer owns but also they own the digital images of everything you say within a dozen yards or more plus all noises, sounds, voices of others and all recorded images, video, etc. According to this back ass ruling, they own all the images and sounds taken for 24/7 during the last 5, 10, whatever years of employment even while you are on vacation, sleeping, etc. So this is a 4th amendment issue, not a property issue. I think that is pretty straight forward notwithstanding your eccentric response. BTW, many of these devices have scent sensors as well. So a catalog of defacation and flatulence (in keeping with your freudean controlled analogies) of you and your family will also be stored in the data warehouses for use by the pharaohs. Also, the foods you eat, when you ate them, the ingredients, soon your heart and internal organ rythms, etc.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
again, that is the point. there is no question about the beeper, or the damaging of property. If he took a shit on the pager it may be similar to your freudean anal phase analogy. But unless I missed something, i do not believe he defacated on said property. And concerning the physical property, there is no dispute. The issue is communications. The property is simply a vhicle for communications. It would be similar to saying that your company laptop is not the only thing that the employer owns but also they own the digital images of everything you say within a dozen yards or more plus all noises, sounds, voices of others and all recorded images, video, etc. According to this back ass ruling, they own all the images and sounds taken for 24/7 during the last 5, 10, whatever years of employment even while you are on vacation, sleeping, etc. So this is a 4th amendment issue, not a property issue. I think that is pretty straight forward notwithstanding your eccentric response. BTW, many of these devices have scent sensors as well. So a catalog of defacation and flatulence (in keeping with your freudean controlled analogies) of you and your family will also be stored in the data warehouses for use by the pharaohs. Also, the foods you eat, when you ate them, the ingredients, soon your heart and internal organ rythms, etc.

That is true, that is exactly why you should not accept company equipment at you home. And if you believe its not an option, you keep the battery removed and in the bag in he closet.

On the flip side, if companies cannot monitor communications. What would stop an employee from "stealing" intellectual property, and making a killing from selling it wholesale from the workplace to the competitor? How would the companies, avoid liabilities, when an employee does misconduct in the name of the company?


Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
That is true, that is exactly why you should not accept company equipment at you home. And if you believe its not an option, you keep the battery removed and in the closet.

On the flip side, if companies cannot monitor communications. What would stop an employee from "stealing" intellectual property, and making a killing from selling it wholesale from the workplace to the competitor?

there is no flip side, the company has a right to intellectual property and has the right to file civil and criminal charges against any theft including intellectual property. That property is the company's. But, the personal communications are not. That is the issue. A company does not need to monitor (and even monitoring is not what the SCOTUS ruled. They ruled the compnay OWNS the communications to be used for datamining, give to media for money, whatever) personal communications to stop theft of intellectual property and if they say they do they are lying.

Quote
How would the employer prevent "time" theft of employees surfing the web randomly when they are on the clock?
FIRE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE SLACKERS AND DO NOT WORK!

You do not need a slave dog collar on a worker to tell if they are doing a good job. Proper management and hiring/firing of workers does not require this level of monitoring. If the point of the company is to keep employees as drones then there is rational to monitor everything they do. But any company that actually sells decent products knows who is a slacker and who is not.


Quote
How would the companies, avoid liabilities, when an employee does misconduct in the name of the company?

They should run a good operation without these BS invasions of privacy which always leads to low morale, low work ethic, and barriers between classes of employees. Give the workers freedom and they will work twice as hard, they will stay longer hours and rack their brains to be more effective team members.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
there is no flip side, the company has a right to intellectual property and has the right to file civil and criminal charges against any theft including intellectual property. That property is the company's. But, the personal communications are not. That is the issue. A company does not need to monitor (and even monitoring is not what the SCOTUS ruled. They ruled the compnay OWNS the communications to be used for datamining, give to media for money, whatever) personal communications to stop theft of intellectual property and if they say they do they are lying.

They own they communication because they are paying for the services of it.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
They own they communication because they are paying for the services of it.

paying for a service does not allow a violation of the 4th amendment. i could pay the NRO for heat imagery inside an employees house, it does not make it legal.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately