Author Topic: Supreme Court rules 9-0 against the 4th amendment in mind blowing decision  (Read 63262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
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.

Sheesh...

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04

A constitutive act may, certainly, be so formed as to need no declaration of rights. The act itself has the force of a declaration as far as it goes; and if it goes to all material points, nothing more is wanting... But in a constitutive act which leaves some precious articles unnoticed and raises implications against others, a declaration of rights becomes necessary by way of supplement. This is the case of our new Federal Constitution. This instrument forms us into one State as to certain objects and gives us a legislative and executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard against their abuses of power within the field submitted to them."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04

Context, intent, logic.

Jefferson also noted that the Constitutions of the several States vary on particulars, but all agree on certain principles.  The idea that the previously established declarations of rights incorporated into those Constitutions are somehow rendered inoperative in light of one drafted for inclusion in the federal Constitution is repugnant to the principles upon which our Republic was founded.

My point, which has been ignored, is that the use of the 4th Article in Amendment to the United States Constitution as a defense against the imposition of rights by a State or local government agency is lacking for substance, calling upon a protection outside the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights.  Arguing that the rights there in enumerated were infringed upon, however, would certainly the correct course of action.  The instrument itself is inapplicable.  I am in full agreement that the sloppy nature of this ruling will certainly have consequences, whether intentional or unintentional.

Regardless, the use of someone else's property inherently makes such use a privilege and subject to the arbitrary rules and regulations of the property owner unless an explicit agreement has been drawn.  If you want your communications to be private, use your own property and clearly define the terms of use when that property must interface with another's.

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 MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
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.

No, but paying for the service allows, unless otherwise guarded via a contract, the property owner and service payer to monitor, log, review, and use the communications as they wish.  There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when using someone else's property unless an agreement is in place that states otherwise.

Besides, you do not "own" the words after they leave your mouth any more than you "own" a text message after you send it.

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
Sheesh...

"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04

A constitutive act may, certainly, be so formed as to need no declaration of rights. The act itself has the force of a declaration as far as it goes; and if it goes to all material points, nothing more is wanting... But in a constitutive act which leaves some precious articles unnoticed and raises implications against others, a declaration of rights becomes necessary by way of supplement. This is the case of our new Federal Constitution. This instrument forms us into one State as to certain objects and gives us a legislative and executive body for these objects. It should therefore guard against their abuses of power within the field submitted to them."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04

Context, intent, logic.

Jefferson also noted that the Constitutions of the several States vary on particulars, but all agree on certain principles.  The idea that the previously established declarations of rights incorporated into those Constitutions are somehow rendered inoperative in light of one drafted for inclusion in the federal Constitution is repugnant to the principles upon which our Republic was founded.

My point, which has been ignored, is that the use of the 4th Article in Amendment to the United States Constitution as a defense against the imposition of rights by a State or local government agency is lacking for substance, calling upon a protection outside the jurisdiction of the Bill of Rights.  Arguing that the rights there in enumerated were infringed upon, however, would certainly the correct course of action.  The instrument itself is inapplicable.  I am in full agreement that the sloppy nature of this ruling will certainly have consequences, whether intentional or unintentional.

Regardless, the use of someone else's property inherently makes such use a privilege and subject to the arbitrary rules and regulations of the property owner unless an explicit agreement has been drawn.  If you want your communications to be private, use your own property and clearly define the terms of use when that property must interface with another's.

The quotes are very nice, but the bill of rights took 10 years to create and refine to ensure the individual protections from all infringements whether they be local, state, national, international, intergalactic, personal, corporate, etc. Please explain what you do when a cop eavesdrops on your home without a warrant. You are saying the 4th amendment does not apply?

As far as the use of someone else's propoerty and having an impression of privacy. Where was there a clear education that it was not private? If you use someone's phone while having dinner at their house, the communication is theirs? If you lease a vehicle, then all communications in that vehicle and near that vehicle are owned by the title holder? Same with a piece of property? What about when you are at your desk at work and you talk to your wife on the phone, is that communication owned by the employer? Again, there is a much larger issue with additional forms of monitoring using cameras, etc.

So what you are saying is that when a school gives laptops to 100 10-14 year olds...the school owns all conversations and all videos and all pictures, etc. 24/7 including if they are sleeping, changing, engaging in normal adolescent behaviour, etc? http://techdirt.com/articles/20100222/1118438253.shtml

This is truly what you are saying?
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
No, but paying for the service allows, unless otherwise guarded via a contract, the property owner and service payer to monitor, log, review, and use the communications as they wish.  There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when using someone else's property unless an agreement is in place that states otherwise.

With the exponential growth of technology, there always is an expectation of privacy unless an agreement is made, this is the nature of the 4th amendment and right to privacy.

Quote
Besides, you do not "own" the words after they leave your mouth any more than you "own" a text message after you send it.

? I do not own the words coming out of my mouth? Who does?
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
My god, these people had the flames of liberty burning in their hearts and breathing hot ash down the necks of tyrants everywhere (just one simple example of thousands of papers)...


http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/james-madison-letter-to-thomas-jefferson-october-17-1788.html

James Madison letter
to Thomas Jefferson

New York Ocr. 17. 1788

Dear Sir

I have written a number of letters to you since my return here, and shall add this by another casual opportunity just notified to me by Mr St. John.(1) Your favor of July 31 came to hand the day before yesterday. The pamphlets of the Marquis Condorcet & Mr. Dupont referred to in it have also been received. Your other letters inclosed to the Delegation have been and will be disposed of as you wish; particularly those to Mr. Eppes & Col. Lewis.

Nothing has been done on the subject of the [outfit]: there not having been a Congress of nine States for some time, nor even of seven for the last week. It is pretty certain that there will not again be a quorum of either number within the present year; and by no means certain that there will be one at all under the old Confederation. The Committee finding that nothing could be done have neglected to make a report as yet. I have spoken with a member of it in order to get one made, that the case may fall of course and in a favorable shape within the attention of the new Government. The fear of a precedent will probably lead to an allowance for a limited time, of the [salary as enjoyed originally] by [foreign ministers] in [preference to a separate allowance for outfit]. One of the [members of the treasury board](2) who ought, if certain facts have [not escaped his memory to witness the reasonableness of your] calculations, [takes occasion I find to impress a contrary idea]. Fortunately [his influence will] not [be a very formidable obstacle to right].

The States which have adopted the new Constitution are all proceeding to the arrangements for putting it into action in March next. Pennsylva. alone has as yet actually appointed deputies, & that only for the Senate. My last mentioned that these were Mr. R. Morris & a Mr. McClay. How the other elections there & elsewhere will run is matter of uncertainty. The Presidency alone unites the conjectures of the public. The vice president is not at all marked out by the general voice. As the President will be from a Southern State, it falls almost of course for the other part of the Continent to supply the next in rank. South Carolina may however think of Mr. Rutlidge unless it should be previously discovered that votes will be wasted on him. The only candidates in the Northern States brought forward with their known consent are [Hancock and Adams] and [between these it seems probable the question will lie]. Both of them [are objectionable and would I think be postponed] by the [general suffrage to several others] if they [would accept the place. Hancock] is [weak, ambitious, a courtier of popularity given to low intrigue] and [lately reunited by a factious friendship with S. Adams---;J. Adams] has made [himself obnoxious to many] particularly in the [Southern states by the political principles avowed in his book]. Others [recollecting his cabal during the war against General Washington], knowing [his extravagant self importance] and [considering his preference of an unprofitable dignity to] some [place of emolument] better [adapted to private fortune as a proof of his] having [an eye to the presidency conclude] that [he would not be a very cordial second to the general] and that [an impatient ambition] might [even intrigue for a premature advancement]. The [danger would be the greater if] particular [factious characters] as may be the case, [should get into the public councils. Adams] it appears, is [not unaware of] some [of the obstacles to his wish]: and [thro a letter to Smith] has [thrown out popular sentiments as to the proposed president].

The little pamphlet herewith inclosed will give you a collective view of the alterations which have been proposed for the new Constitution. Various and numerous as they appear they certainly omit many of the true grounds of opposition. The articles relating to Treaties---;to paper money, and to contracts, created more enemies than all the errors in the System positive & negative put together. It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable & patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution, there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty & individual rights. As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice. I have not viewed it in an important light 1. because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson,(3) the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of Conscience in particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power. One of the objections in New England was that the Constitution by prohibiting religious tests, opened a door for Jews, Turks & infidels. 3. because the limited powers of the federal Government and the jealousy of the subordinate Governments, afford a security which has not existed in the case of the State Governments, and exists in no other. 4. because experience proves the inefficacy of a bill of rights on those occasions when its controul is most needed. Repeated violations of these parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current. Notwithstanding the explicit provision contained in that instrument for the rights of Conscience it is well known that a religious establishment wd. have taken place in that State, if the legislative majority had found as they expected, a majority of the people in favor of the measure; and I am persuaded that if a majority of the people were now of one sect, the measure would still take place and on narrower ground than was then proposed, notwithstanding the additional obstacle which the law has since created. Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to: and is probably more strongly impressed on my mind by facts, and reflections suggested by them, than on yours which has contemplated abuses of power issuing from a very different quarter. Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful & interested party than by a powerful and interested prince. The difference, so far as it relates to the superiority of republics over monarchies, lies in the less degree of probability that interest may prompt abuses of power in the former than in the latter; and in the security in the former agst. oppression of more than the smaller part of the society, whereas in the former(4) it may be extended in a manner to the whole. The difference so far as it relates to the point in question---;the efficacy of a bill of rights in controuling abuses of power---;lies in this, that in a monarchy the latent force of the nation is superior to that of the sovereign, and a solemn charter of popular rights, must have a great effect, as a standard for trying the validity of public acts, and a signal for rousing & uniting the superior force of the community; whereas in a popular Government, the political and physical power may be considered as vested in the same hands, that is in a majority of the people, and consequently the tyrannical will of the sovereign is not to be controuled by the dread of an appeal to any other force within the community. What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments? I answer the two following which though less essential than in other Governments, sufficiently recommend the precaution. 1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion. 2. Altho' it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter source; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community. Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers, may by gradual & well-timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard against it, especially when the precaution can do no injury. At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our governments to danger on that side. It has been remarked that there is a tendency in all Governments to an augmentation of power at the expence of liberty. But the remark as usually understood does not appear to me well founded. Power when it has attained a certain degree of energy and independence goes on generally to further degrees. But when below that degree, the direct tendency is to further degrees of relaxation, until the abuses of liberty beget a sudden transition to an undue degree of power. With this explanation the remark may be true; and in the latter sense only, is it in my opinion applicable to the Governments in America. It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power, and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.

Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public; and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases, they will lose even their ordinary efficacy. Should a Rebellion or insurrection alarm the people as well as the Government, and a suspension of the Hab. corp. be dictated by the alarm, no written prohibitions on earth would prevent the measure. Should an army in time of peace be gradually established in our neighbourhood by Britn. or Spain, declarations on paper would have as little effect in preventing a standing force for the public safety. The best security agst. these evils is to remove the pretext for them. With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nusances in Government. But it is clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to require in all cases a reserved right to the Public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely less danger of this abuse in our Governments, than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger can not be very great that the few will be thus favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.

I inclose a paper containing the late proceedings in Kentucky.(5) I wish the ensuing Convention may take no step injurious to the character of the district, and favorable to the views of those who wish ill to the U. States. One of my late letters communicated some circumstances which will not fail to occur on perusing the objects of the proposed Convention in next month. Perhaps however there may be less connection between the two cases than at first one is ready to conjecture.

I am Dr Sir with the sincerest esteem & Affectn, Yours, Js. Madison Jr
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

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Madison_letter_to_Nicholas_P._Trist

James Madison letter to Nicholas P. Trist

by James Madison 15 Feb. 1830

It has been too much the case in expounding the Constitution of the U. S. that its meaning has been sought not in its peculiar and unprecedented modifications of Power; but by viewing it, some through the medium of a simple Govt. others thro' that of a mere League of Govts. It is neither the one nor the other; but essentially different from both. It must consequently be its own interpreter. No other Government can furnish a key to its true character. Other Governments present an individual & indivisible sovereignty. The Constitution of the U. S. divides the sovereignty; the portions surrendered by the States, composing the Federal sovereignty over specified subjects; the portions retained forming the sovereignty of each over the residuary subjects within its sphere. If sovereignty cannot be thus divided, the Political System of the United States is a chimaera, mocking the vain pretensions of human wisdom. If it can be so divided, the system ought to have a fair opportunity of fulfilling the wishes & expectations which cling to the experiment.

Nothing can be more clear than that the Constitution of the U. S. has created a Government, in as strict a sense of the term, as the Governments of the States created by their respective Constitutions. The Federal Govt. has like the State govts. its Legislative, its Executive & its Judiciary Departments. It has, like them, acknowledged cases in which the powers of these departments are to operate. And the operation is to be directly on persons & things in the one Govt. as in the others. If in some cases, the jurisdiction is concurrent as it is in others exclusive, this is one of the features constituting the peculiarity of the system.

In forming this compound scheme of Government it was impossible to lose sight of the question, what was to be done in the event of controversies which could not fail to occur, concerning the partition line, between the powers belonging to the Federal and to the State Govts. That some provision ought to be made, was as obvious and as essential, as the task itself was difficult and delicate.

That the final decision of such controversies, if left to each of the 13 now 24 members of the Union, must produce a different Constitution & different laws in the States was certain; and that such differences must be destructive of the common Govt. & of the Union itself, was equally certain. The decision of questions between the common agents of the whole & of the parts, could only proceed from the whole, that is from a collective not a separate authority of the parts.

The question then presenting itself could only relate to the least objectionable mode of providing for such occurrences, under the collective authority.

The provision immediately and ordinarily relied on, is manifestly the Supreme Court of the U. S., clothed as it is, with a Jurisdiction "in controversies to which the U. S. shall be a party;" the Court itself being so constituted as to render it independent & impartial in its decisions; [see Federalist, no. 39] whilst other and ulterior resorts would remain in the elective process, in the hands of the people themselves the joint constituents of the parties; and in the provision made by the Constitution for amending itself. All other resorts are extra & ultra constitutional, corresponding to the Ultima Ratio of nations renouncing the ordinary relations of peace.

If the Supreme Court of the U. S. be found or deemed not sufficiently independent and impartial for the trust committed to it, a better Tribunal is a desideratum: But whatever this may be, it must necessarily derive its authority from the whole not from the parts, from the States in some collective not individual capacity. And as some such Tribunal is a vital element, a sine qua non, in an efficient & permanent Govt. the Tribunal existing must be acquiesced in, until a better or more satisfactory one can be substituted.

Altho' the old idea of a compact between the Govt. & the people be justly exploded, the idea of a compact among those who are parties to a Govt. is a fundamental principle of free Govt.

The original compact is the one implied or presumed, but nowhere reduced to writing, by which a people agree to form one society. The next is a compact, here for the first time reduced to writing, by which the people in their social state agree to a Govt. over them. These two compacts may be considered as blended in the Constitution of the U. S., which recognises a union or society of States, and makes it the basis of the Govt. formed by the parties to it.

It is the nature & essence of a compact that it is equally obligatory on the parties to it, and of course that no one of them can be liberated therefrom without the consent of the others, or such a violation or abuse of it by the others, as will amount to a dissolution of the compact.

Applying this view of the subject to a single community, it results, that the compact being between the individuals composing it, no individual or set of individuals can at pleasure, break off and set up for themselves, without such a violation of the compact as absolves them from its obligations. It follows at the same time that, in the event of such a violation, the suffering party rather than longer yield a passive obedience may justly shake off the yoke, and can only be restrained from the attempt by a want of physical strength for the purpose. The case of individuals expatriating themselves, that is leaving their country in its territorial as well as its social & political sense, may well be deemed a reasonable privilege, or rather as a right impliedly reserved. And even in this case equitable conditions have been annexed to the right which qualify the exercise of it.

Applying a like view of the subject to the case of the U. S. it results, that the compact being among individuals as imbodied into States, no State can at pleasure release itself therefrom, and set up for itself. The compact can only be dissolved by the consent of the other parties, or by usurpations or abuses of power justly having that effect. It will hardly be contended that there is anything in the terms or nature of the compact, authorizing a party to dissolve it at pleasure.

It is indeed inseparable from the nature of a compact, that there is as much right on one side to expound it & to insist on its fulfilment according to that exposition, as there is on the other so to expound it as to furnish a release from it; and that an attempt to annul it by one of the parties, may present to the other, an option of acquiescing in the annulment, or of preventing it as the one or the other course may be deemed the lesser evil. This is a consideration which ought deeply to impress itself on every patriotic mind, as the strongest dissuasion from unnecessary approaches to such a crisis. What would be the condition of the States attached to the Union & its Govt. and regarding both as essential to their well-being, if a State placed in the midst of them were to renounce its Federal obligations, and erect itself into an independent and alien nation? Could the States N. & S. of Virginia, Pennsyla. or N. York, or of some other States however small, remain associated and enjoy their present happiness, if geographically politically and practically thrown apart by such a breach in the chain which unites their interests and binds them together as neighbours & fellow citizens. It could not be. The innovation would be fatal to the Federal Governt. fatal to the Union, and fatal to the hopes of liberty and humanity; and presents a catastrophe at which all ought to shudder.

Without identifying the case of the U. S. with that of individual States, there is at least an instructive analogy between them. What would be the condition of the State of N. Y. of Massts. or of Pena. for example, if portions containing their great commercial cities, invoking original rights as paramount to social & constitutional compacts, should erect themselves into distinct & absolute sovereignties? In so doing they would do no more, unless justified by an intolerable oppression, than would be done by an individual State as a portion of the Union, in separating itself, without a like cause, from the other portions. Nor would greater evils be inflicted by such a mutilation of a State of some of its parts, than might be felt by some of the States from a separation of its neighbours into absolute and alien sovereignties.

Even in the case of a mere League between nations absolutely independent of each other, neither party has a right to dissolve it at pleasure; each having an equal right to expound its obligations, and neither, consequently a greater right to pronounce the compact void than the other has to insist on the mutual execution of it. [See, in Mr. Jefferson's volumes, his letters to J. M. Mr. Monroe & Col. Carrington]

Having suffered my pen to take this ramble over a subject engaging so much of your attention, I will not withhold the notes made by it from your persual. But being aware that without more development & precision, they may in some instances be liable to misapprehension or misconstruction, I will ask the favour of you to return the letter after it has passed under your partial & confidential eye.

I have made no secret of my surprize and sorrow at the proceedings in S. Carolina, which are understood to assert a right to annul the Acts of Congress within the State, & even to secede from the Union itself. But I am unwilling to enter the political field with the "telum imbelle" which alone I could wield. The task of combating such unhappy aberrations belongs to other hands. A man whose years have but reached the canonical three-score-&-ten (and mine are much beyond the number) should distrust himself, whether distrusted by his friends or not, and should never forget that his arguments, whatever they may be will be answered by allusions to the date of his birth.
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 quotes are very nice, but the bill of rights took 10 years to create and refiune to esure the individual protections from all infringements whether they be local, state, national, international, intergalactic, personal, corporate, etc. Please explain what you do when a cop eavesdrops on your home without a warrant. You are saying the 4th amendment does not apply?

As far as the use of someone else's propoerty and having an impression of privacy. Where was there a clear education that it was not private? If you use someone's phone while having dinner at their house, the communication is theirs? If you lease a vehicle, then all communications in that vehicle and near that vehicle are owned by the title holder? Same with a piece of property? What about when you are at your desk at work and you talk to your wife on the phone, is that communication owned by the employer? Again, there is a much larger issue with additional forms of monitoring using cameras, etc.

So what you are saying is that when a school gives laptops to 100 10-14 year olds...the school owns all conversations and all videos and all pictures, etc. 24/7 including if they are sleeping, changing, engaging in normal adolescent behaviour, etc?

This is truly what you are saying?

Not what I'm saying at all.  Most of the scenarios you posit have varying degrees of privacy applicability when it comes to the reasonable expectation thereof.  To single one out, though, a car is hardly a communication device.

The proper argument to made here is a matter of established wiretapping laws, not the imposition of a right.  Furthermore, my entire point regarding the inapplicability of the BoR in this instance is based upon the use of the instrument itself as a defense, not that I disagree that there may be indeed a violation of privacy... not my call, though (pun intended).

I could certainly claim a 4th Amendment protection in the face of potential search of my vehicle at a traffic stop.  However, to do so would be akin to stating I am indeed a "U.S. Citizen".  I am not comfortable with that as I am not a federal subject.  I would merely answer "no" to their asking to search my vehicle.  By doing so, I am not using an inappropriate legal instrument as a shield, but merely exercising a right antecedent to that instrument.  The protection of that right would come from the Texas State Supreme Court if ultimately necessary, as the State of Texas provides protection of that right in Article I Section 9 of the Texas State Constitution.

As to who "owns" your words when they leave your mouth... no one does.  You may choose to protect the use of those words by others all you want, but given the complexity of society, the use of copyright and trademark laws are more effective in that protection.  If no personally-enforced or assisted protection exists, they become public domain.  I think you would find it difficult to seek remedy for me repeating your words here as I see fit if they are not protected by some trademark or copyright.

Do you believe you "own" the words you have typed on this website?  Must I ask permission to use the quote of your text above?

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
Not what I'm saying at all.  Most of the scenarios you posit have varying degrees of privacy applicability when it comes to the reasonable expectation thereof.  To single one out, though, a car is hardly a communication device.

The proper argument to made here is a matter of established wiretapping laws, not the imposition of a right.  Furthermore, my entire point regarding the inapplicability of the BoR in this instance is based upon the use of the instrument itself as a defense, not that I disagree that there may be indeed a violation of privacy... not my call, though (pun intended).

I could certainly claim a 4th Amendment protection in the face of potential search of my vehicle at a traffic stop.  However, to do so would be akin to stating I am indeed a "U.S. Citizen".  I am not comfortable with that as I am not a federal subject.  I would merely answer "no" to their asking to search my vehicle.  By doing so, I am not using an inappropriate legal instrument as a shield, but merely exercising a right antecedent to that instrument.  The protection of that right would come from the Texas State Supreme Court if ultimately necessary, as the State of Texas provides protection of that right in Article I Section 9 of the Texas State Constitution.

As to who "owns" your words when they leave your mouth... no one does.  You may choose to protect the use of those words by others all you want, but given the complexity of society, the use of copyright and trademark laws are more effective in that protection.  If no personally-enforced or assisted protection exists, they become public domain.  I think you would find it difficult to seek remedy for me repeating your words here as I see fit if they are not protected by some trademark or copyright.

Do you believe you "own" the words you have typed on this website?  Must I ask permission to use the quote of your text above?

I cannot argue with any of that, but do request that you look deeper into the bill of rights and the argument that the intention was protecting individuals from every infringement. And Madison was one wild man when it came to liberty (like many of the others).

As far asything I have ever posted on this forum, use it, paraphrase, say it is your own. Most of it is plaigerized anyway from random information I recall. I try to source as much as possible, if you request any sources for any of my seemingly brazen points, reply with the request or pm it.

But yeah, if you find anything remotely useful, grab it, it is yours (pun intended).
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
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 cannot argue with any of that, but do request that you look deeper into the bill of rights and the argument that the intention was protecting individuals from every infringement. And Madison was one wild man when it came to liberty (like many of the others).

As far asything I have ever posted on this forum, use it, paraphrase, say it is your own. Most of it is plaigerized anyway from random information I recall. I try to source as much as possible, if you request any sources for any of my seemingly brazen points, reply with the request or pm it.

But yeah, if you find anything remotely useful, grab it, it is yours (pun intended).

I hope I haven't come across as upset or any variety of defensive.  This topic has actually peaked my interest in digging deeper and I thank you for the insight into an alternate perspective from my own... to which I may find room for some modification, no doubt.

I appreciate your steadfast holding to principle, and from what I have read on this forum, I can confidently say we are on the same side when it comes to the fight for and defense of liberty... even if that side is surrounding the opposition as to make us facing each other with sabers drawn :P.  No hard feelings, and if not too much to ask, I'd hope my perspective has at least sparked a mild interest... perhaps we can meet in the middle at some point.


... and thanks for the links!

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 Tomslik

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 43
yeah too much fluoride. really dude, you butt in like a queen's tax collector onto a family that has discovered some lost rubies.

Jumping to conclusions again huh, sweetheart.  Just pointing out the obvious which you obviously aren't aware of.  Sometimes you are informative.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Jumping to conclusions again huh, sweetheart.  Just pointing out the obvious which you obviously aren't aware of.  Sometimes you are informative.

ditto
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

kushfiend

  • Guest
it's funny because i see this happening in my own little world as well - at my job i am required to email like hundreds of times a day everything is done through email and my supervisor goes through every single email scanning it for jokes, slander, or anything non work related and if you violate youre fired.  no questions.  also if you ever go on a non work related website, fired.  no questions.  I've seen like 5 people go down like that it's pretty crazy. 

Welcome to 2010 big brother IS watching you 24/7

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
I hope I haven't come across as upset or any variety of defensive.  This topic has actually peaked my interest in digging deeper and I thank you for the insight into an alternate perspective from my own... to which I may find room for some modification, no doubt.

I appreciate your steadfast holding to principle, and from what I have read on this forum, I can confidently say we are on the same side when it comes to the fight for and defense of liberty... even if that side is surrounding the opposition as to make us facing each other with sabers drawn :P.  No hard feelings, and if not too much to ask, I'd hope my perspective has at least sparked a mild interest... perhaps we can meet in the middle at some point.


... and thanks for the links!

any excuse i can find to research and expand upon the founding papers is completely welcome. you definitely had me have to understand deeper levels of what I feel are threats to the individual from the oppressors whoever they may be. perhaps this forum can act as a Hegelian dialectic where there are conflicting points of view but all the time supporting the same purpose of defense of liberty and exposing threats to her. now wouldn't that be cool.
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
it's funny because i see this happening in my own little world as well - at my job i am required to email like hundreds of times a day everything is done through email and my supervisor goes through every single email scanning it for jokes, slander, or anything non work related and if you violate youre fired.  no questions.  also if you ever go on a non work related website, fired.  no questions.  I've seen like 5 people go down like that it's pretty crazy. 

Welcome to 2010 big brother IS watching you 24/7

but never the untouchables.
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

kushfiend

  • Guest
but never the untouchables.

?  that reference went over my head

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
?  that reference went over my head

those measures used to cull the heard of employees in large corporations never is used against senior vp's of large firms even if they engage in exactly the same activity.
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
it's funny because i see this happening in my own little world as well - at my job i am required to email like hundreds of times a day everything is done through email and my supervisor goes through every single email scanning it for jokes, slander, or anything non work related and if you violate youre fired.  no questions.  also if you ever go on a non work related website, fired.  no questions.  I've seen like 5 people go down like that it's pretty crazy. 

Welcome to 2010 big brother IS watching you 24/7

I was "asked" to do this at a previous job.  My answer was "that's not my job".  They threatened to fire me and I furthered my answer with "it's not my job to police employees, but if you make it my job, I'll make it this evening's news".  I was there another year before leaving on good terms before they went bust.

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 was "asked" to do this at a previous job.  My answer was "that's not my job".  They threatened to fire me and I furthered my answer with "it's not my job to police employees, but if you make it my job, I'll make it this evening's news".  I was there another year before leaving on good terms before they went bust.

you ever notice how you can see the trapped soul in their eyes begging to get out? at first they get pissed the f off and then all of their complaining just hides their quiet desperation to see a society where such integrity is promoted rather than squashed. liberty is an infectuous remedy to human suffering whether in the work place or elsewhere.
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
it's funny because i see this happening in my own little world as well - at my job i am required to email like hundreds of times a day everything is done through email and my supervisor goes through every single email scanning it for jokes, slander, or anything non work related and if you violate youre fired.  no questions.  also if you ever go on a non work related website, fired.  no questions.  I've seen like 5 people go down like that it's pretty crazy. 

Welcome to 2010 big brother IS watching you 24/7

You act like they do it because they have nothing better to do. More than a few companies have been sunk because of foolish employees.

What was frightening about 1984 was the pervasiveness of the tyranny. Being an employee is a choice.

kushfiend

  • Guest
those measures used to cull the heard of employees in large corporations never is used against senior vp's of large firms even if they engage in exactly the same activity.

OH!  Right, of course I completely agree, all the attorneys at my lawfirm get away with so much shit it's ridiculous.  Our entire society is ass backwards, I mean what do I do?  I sit and type at a screen all day, how does that deserve any money at all?  I both love and hate the computer age

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
You act like they do it because they have nothing better to do. More than a few companies have been sunk because of foolish employees.

What was frightening about 1984 was the pervasiveness of the tyranny. Being an employee is a choice.

which companies were sunk by foolish employees? i think he is talking about the random emails that people sennd to each other which may take up less than 1% of the time/energy/focus. it is like a coffee break, but some companies use it to cull the heard. especially large companies and it is discretionary enforcement. justice turned into Just Us.
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
You act like they do it because they have nothing better to do. More than a few companies have been sunk because of foolish employees.

What was frightening about 1984 was the pervasiveness of the tyranny. Being an employee is a choice.

True, but zero tolerance policies are sh-t policies.  Idle hands and all that crap... give people worthwhile rewarding work to do and they won't have the time or desire to f--ck around.  If a company has such a high instance of those abusing privileges, I'd say it's time to address the underlying issue, not sack all "offenders".

I have plenty of users at my present job that f--ck around now and then.  When it gets out of hand, I find creative ways to stop or lessen it.  When the I.T. guy tells you to watch your ass, you somehow know you better heed the warning or else.  Unfortunately, most have short-term memories, so I have to remind them a couple times a year.  My favorite is a "site blocked" message that tells them the next time they visit the site in question, a notification will be sent to management.  My second favorite is having a filter that replaces certain explicit phrases in emails with alternates.  I don't have to read or monitor activity to enforce the very mild terms of use we have.

Granted, larger companies would be hard-pressed to grant such autonomy to I.T., but I doubt they've tried it and instead institute draconian policies... a sign of rigid and ineffective management, imo.

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!!

kushfiend

  • Guest
True, but zero tolerance policies are sh-t policies.  Idle hands and all that crap... give people worthwhile rewarding work to do and they won't have the time or desire to f--ck around.  If a company has such a high instance of those abusing privileges, I'd say it's time to address the underlying issue, not sack all "offenders".

I have plenty of users at my present job that f--ck around now and then.  When it gets out of hand, I find creative ways to stop or lessen it.  When the I.T. guy tells you to watch your ass, you somehow know you better heed the warning or else.  Unfortunately, most have short-term memories, so I have to remind them a couple times a year.  My favorite is a "site blocked" message that tells them the next time they visit the site in question, a notification will be sent to management.  My second favorite is having a filter that replaces certain explicit phrases in emails with alternates.  I don't have to read or monitor activity to enforce the very mild terms of use we have.

Granted, larger companies would be hard-pressed to grant such autonomy to I.T., but I doubt they've tried it and instead institute draconian policies... a sign of rigid and ineffective management, imo.


well said monkey well said indeed.  In this economy, the employer has all the cards.  They just cull the herd to find the people who are desperate enough to work like a slave [me].

Offline MonkeyPuppet

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,976
  • aut libertas aut mors
which companies were sunk by foolish employees? i think he is talking about the random emails that people sennd to each other which may take up less than 1% of the time/energy/focus. it is like a coffee break, but some companies use it to cull the heard. especially large companies and it is discretionary enforcement. justice turned into Just Us.

I was "guilty" of abusing company resources in my younger days.  The consequence could have been making the company party to a $1.5m civil suit.  They offered to keep me there if I signed a statement saying they were not aware of my activities, which was a lie.  I refused to sign and they fired me.  It was the right move on their part even though I had to face the music alone.

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
Here we go, what timing...



Napolitano Bombshell: "We track every single thing you do on the Internet"

Napolitano: Internet Monitoring Needed to Fight Homegrown Terrorism
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/18/napolitano-internet-monitoring-needed-fight-homegrown-terrorism/
Published June 18, 2010 | Associated Press


WASHINGTON -- Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

As terrorists increasingly recruit U.S. citizens [This is a lie, the CIA recruits American citizens. Terrorists do not recruit shit, anyone not an American who even sneazes "allah akbar" is tracked 24/7 (also illegally). And if they interact with any American citizen it is because the CIA wants that interaction to occur], the government needs to constantly balance Americans' civil rights and privacy with the need to keep people safe, said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. [THIS IS EXACTLY THE HITLER, BUSH, MAO, STALIN DOCTRINE!]

But finding that balance has become more complex as homegrown terrorists have used the Internet to reach out to extremists abroad for inspiration and training [This is a lie of the highest degree. The top 100 sites used for so called recruiting are run out of Langley, 10 Downing Street, or Tel Aviv. Everybody knows this, is she trying to completely discredit herself?]. Those contacts have spurred a recent rash of U.S.-based terror plots and incidents. [Another lie, just because they initiated Project Northwoods which is so obvious with the Chistmas Underwear Intelligence Op and the Times Square Drill does not mean they can use their own false flag black ops to force us into burning the constitution]

"The First Amendment protects radical opinions, but we need the legal tools to do things like monitor the recruitment of terrorists via the Internet," Napolitano told a gathering of the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. [Has she completely lost her f**king mind? What? What the hell do they have to do with each other? And why has terrorism grown while we have spent over $5 Trillion on exterminating over 1 million so called terrorists while raping another million, maiming many millions, and causing massive exoduses. And all this time causing PTSD and radiation in over a million soldiers, causing over 20,000 dead soldiers through the battlefield or by damaging their minds so much that they end up committing suicide. After all the world gave to this massive undertaking we are supposed to believe that so calld terrorism by random nuts increased? How is this even possible? Do you think maybe there is some other hidden agenda going on? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2502830637471895940]

Napolitano's comments suggest an effort by the Obama administration to reach out to its more liberal, Democratic constituencies to assuage fears that terrorist worries will lead to the erosion of civil rights.

The administration has faced a number of civil liberties and privacy challenges in recent months as it has tried to increase airport security by adding full-body scanners, or track suspected terrorists traveling into the United States from other countries.

"Her speech is sign of the maturing of the administration on this issue," said Stewart Baker, former undersecretary for policy with the Department of Homeland Security. "They now appreciate the risks and the trade-offs much more clearly than when they first arrived, and to their credit, they've adjusted their preconceptions."

Underscoring her comments are a number of recent terror attacks over the past year where legal U.S. residents such as Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad and accused Fort Hood, Texas, shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan, are believed to have been inspired by the Internet postings of violent Islamic extremists. [So the slave Napolitano was not enough for the banksters, Rothschild ordered AP to add that cherry of a comment. Hey Rothschild, we know that both Fort Hood and Times Square were protected patsies by the Terrorist Industrial Complex and that it is funded by Bilderberg and acts on behalf of Bilderberg. Bilderberg had the largest motive for the Fort Hood massacre and then ran the 24/7 psyops about so called Homegrown Terrorism and the evil Internet. Thanks for confirming this "kill the Internet" motive.]

And the fact that these are U.S. citizens or legal residents raises many legal and constitutional questions.

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

She added, "We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable."

As an example, she noted the struggle to use full-body scanners at airports caused worries that they would invade people's privacy.

The scanners are useful in identifying explosives or other nonmetal weapons that ordinary metal-detectors might miss -- such as the explosives that authorities said were successfully brought on board the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day by Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
[THEY HAD THESE RAPE SCANNERS AT THE AIRPORT HE FLEW OUT OF! UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE KENNEDY EXPLAINED IN A LIVE PRESS CONFERENCE THAT HE WAS PUT ON THE PLANE EVEN THOUGH HE WAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND HAD NO PASSPORT BY A US INTELLIGENCE OFFICER!!!! THESE RAPE SCANNERS CANNOT STOP THE CIA FROM CONDUCTING FALSE FLAGS!!!]


He is accused of trying to detonate a bomb hidden in his underwear, but the explosives failed, and only burned Abdulmutallab.

U.S. officials, said Napolitano, have worked to institute a number of restrictions on the scanners' use in order to minimize that. The scans cannot be saved or stored on the machines by the operator, and Transportation Security Agency workers can't have phones or cameras that could capture the scan when near the machine. [These scanners are controlled by NRO, she has no power whatsoever on what they do. What a joke]



MORE FUN...



Pentagon revives Rumsfeld-era domestic spying unit
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0619/pentagon-revives-domestic-spying-unit/
By Daniel Tencer
Saturday, June 19th, 2010 -- 7:13 pm



The Pentagon's spy unit has quietly begun to rebuild a database for tracking potential terrorist threats that was shut down after it emerged that it had been collecting information on American anti-war activists.

The Defense Intelligence Agency filed notice this week that it plans to create a new section called Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence Operation Records, whose purpose will be to "document intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism and counternarcotic operations relating to the protection of national security."

But while the unit's name refers to "foreign intelligence," civil liberties advocates and the Pentagon's own description of the program suggest that Americans will likely be included in the new database.

FICOR replaces a program called Talon, which the DIA created in 2002 under then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as part of the counterterrorism efforts following the 9/11 attacks. It was disbanded in 2007 after it emerged that Talon had retained information on anti-war protesters, including Quakers, even after it was determined they posed no threat to national security.

DIA spokesman Donald Black told Newsweek that the new database would not include the more controversial elements of the old Talon program. But Jeff Stein at the Washington Post reports that the new program will evidently inherit the old Talon database.

"Why the new depository would want such records while its parent agency no longer has a law enforcement function could not be learned," Stein reports. "Nor could it be learned whether the repository will include intelligence reports on protest groups gathered by its predecessor."

The Pentagon's notice states that the database will collect "identifying information such as name, Social Security Number (SSN), address, citizenship documentation, biometric data, passport number, vehicle identification number and vehicle/vessel license data." As only US residents have Social Security Numbers, it appears the program is being designed at least partly to contain domestic information.

Newsweek cites two unnamed US officials as suggesting that the new program essentially echoes the old one. When CIFA, the DIA division running Talon, was disbanded in 2008, "many of its personnel and some of its functions were transferred" to the new DIA unit running the new database program. The new program will be housed "in the same office space that CIFA once occupied, in a complex near suburban Washington’s Reagan National Airport."

Mike German, a former FBI agent now working with the ACLU, says "Americans should be just as concerned" about the new database as the previous one under the Bush administration.

"It’s a little hard to tell what this is exactly, but we do know that DIA took over 'offensive counterintelligence' for the DoD once CIFA was abandoned," he told the Post's Stein. "It therefore makes sense that this new DIA database would be collecting the same types of information that CIFA collected improperly."
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
This is the agenda and why the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the 4th Amendment with such callous disregard.

They are following the Bilderberg agenda, this is the plan.

The 4th Amendment is to be destroyed using both "terrorism" and "sex issues" as a way to justify complete nazification of this country via the corporatistic hijacked 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 Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
US Court of App says: "F**k the constitution!

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=161220.0



'Welcome to the Fishbowl,' Kozinski Says in Dissent
http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/02/19/24866.htm
By ELIZABETH BANICKI

     (CN) - "Plain view is killing the Fourth Amendment," Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote in his forceful dissent from the 9th Circuit's refusal to reconsider its decision backing the warrantless search of a man's home after officers spotted a gun tucked in couch cushions. "Welcome to the fishbowl," the judge added.

     The decision not to take up the case irked Kozinski so profoundly that he wrote a nine-page dissent, calling the search "a fishing expedition by four officers" that was approved "based on no showing whatsoever. Nada. Gar nichts. Rien du tout. Bupkes."

     "Our court approves, without blinking, a police sweep of a person's home without a warrant, without probable cause, without reasonable suspicion and without exigency-in other words with nothing at all," Kozinski wrote.

     Juan Lemus was in his yard one day when two officers pulled up to arrest him. Lemus was trying to walk into his living room when the officers handcuffed him in his doorway.

     A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled that the officers could enter and search the home without suspicion, because they claimed they could see a gun in plain view on Lemus' couch. The gun was found in couch cushions.

     "Did I mention that this was an entry into somebody's home, a place where the protections of the Fourth Amendment are supposedly at their zenith?" Kozinski wrote.

     He said the "evisceration of this crucial constitutional protector of the sanctity and privacy of what American's consider their castles is pretty much complete."
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

Online chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,817
In order To dominate they must attack the 4th. amendment.
Seriously , how many bills, Gov actions, have been contray to the constitution and bill of rights.

This incident, a cop uses a gov pager, he assumes, no big deal I'm paying for the Fker, so what.who gives a shiiiite.

Does anyone think the Gov was not aware of this usage, that it is a tactic to attack the 4th.Amnd.

Another step into their controll factor, this being a a excuse, .....as if they needed one.

Offline Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
They own they communication because they are paying for the services of it.

That is like saying schools can spy on students and their families in the privacy of their own homes using the webcams on government issued laptops because the government paid for the laptops.

They may own the phone, but they do not own the employees private and personal communications. It is no more legal for a company to monitor private communications than it is for the NSA, DHS, FBI, CIA etc. etc. to monitor them.

Policies and rules do not trump the 4th Amendment.
“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 Optimus

  • Globalist Destroyer
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12,802
    • GlobalGulag.com
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?


Here's another flip side:

If a landlord rents a furnished house to you, does that mean the landlord has the right to enter the home anytime they want to shit on the couch, wipe his ass on the drapes, rifle through the underwear drawer, eat your food out of the refrigerator, listen to the answering machine, read your email, etc, etc. simply because he owns the property, the house and the furnishings? I think not.
“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 nustada

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,249
That is like saying schools can spy on students and their families in the privacy of their own homes using the webcams on government issued laptops because the government paid for the laptops.

They may own the phone, but they do not own the employees private and personal communications. It is no more legal for a company to monitor private communications than it is for the NSA, DHS, FBI, CIA etc. etc. to monitor them.

Policies and rules do not trump the 4th Amendment.

No it isn't. The student's are not "employees". Many of them are not there by "choice" of them or their parents. The laptops are public property. The students were likely not aware that the cameras were monitored.

The case is an employee, of the government. Using a private (as in not public) equipment. Employers are supposed to give terms of use, to employees as a condition of employment, using company equipment, need to sign.

Apples and oranges.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
No it isn't. The student's are not "employees". Many of them are not there by "choice" of them or their parents. The laptops are public property. The students were likely not aware that the cameras were monitored.

The case is an employee, of the government. Using a private (as in not public) equipment. Employers are supposed to give terms of use, to employees as a condition of employment, using company equipment, need to sign.

Apples and oranges.

"Employers are supposed to give terms of use, to employees as a condition of employment, using company equipment, need to sign."

They also need to give details of what invasions of privacy can be expected. We are not sure either were done.

They are the same thing it is 4th amendment creep and it is going on everywhere., They are the same exact thing and it will get much much worse (already is).

New cars have cameras, scent monitoring, pressure monitoring, microphones, gps, rfid, etc. all of this information is connected to your bio-ID kept in a secret agency of the US government now publicly admitted. This is the same exact thing and the SCOTUS is in on the game to rape the 4th amendment for the Bilderberg bankers. They have been doing it for decades.

That is the point
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
New cars have cameras, scent monitoring, pressure monitoring, microphones, gps, rfid, etc. all of this information is connected to your bio-ID kept in a secret agency of the US government now publicly admitted. This is the same exact thing and the SCOTUS is in on the game to rape the 4th amendment for the Bilderberg bankers. They have been doing it for decades.

That is the point

Again, you are using a strawman attack. I agree that wiretapping of your home and your car, is a breach of the 4th. And don't use that "well if the lender holds the title" B.S. It only shows your ignorance of property right laws.

The issue here is the pager or the paging service was not his. Its his employers, and they have the right to their own property to use it as they see fit. Arguing the opposite, is a much. Its saying, a property owner, has no rights to his own possessions.

You are in the wrong, and you admitted that by constantly and intentionally resorting to fallacious methods of argumentation.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Again, you are using a strawman attack. I agree that wiretapping of your home and your car, is a breach of the 4th. And don't use that "well if the lender holds the title" B.S. It only shows your ignorance of property right laws.

The issue here is the pager or the paging service was not his. Its his employers, and they have the right to their own property to use it as they see fit. Arguing the opposite, is a much. Its saying, a property owner, has no rights to his own possessions.

You are in the wrong, and you admitted that by constantly and intentionally resorting to fallacious methods of argumentation.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The following argument:

"Its his employers, and they have the right to their own property to use it as they see fit. "

Is actually the heart of the problem. They do not have the right when it conflicts of the forth amendment. That is one of the most essential purposes of the forth amendment. Companies, neighbors, government, employers, etc. cannot use their own property to invade your privacy. You are in the wrong, and you admitted that by intentially resorting to confusing property (a beeper) with privacy (communications). You can post links to thousands of classic Karl Rove type defenses (straw man, etc.) it does not stop the truth that physical property and private communications are as different as night and day. The communications are not the property of the employer, but SCOTUS said that because they could have been deemed a threat in some way, they granted that right (illegally) to the emplyer. They transfered ownership with this decision of a 4th Amendment protected right and instead called it a property to be given to the employer. This is such an invasion to civil liberties for anyone who knows that the plan is to have like 100 companies in total worldwide and no one will be able to get a job outside of those companies. And companies more and more are using fleets, laptops, cellphones, even housing to invade the 4th amendment privacy protected by the constitution. This is a much bigger issue and as said earlier, the cop's actions are being used to create polarization into what is a very clear cut case of 4th amendment violations.
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
The following argument:

"Its his employers, and they have the right to their own property to use it as they see fit. "

Is actually the heart of the problem. They do not have the right when it conflicts of the forth amendment. That is one of the most essential purposes of the forth amendment. Companies, neighbors, government, employers, etc. cannot use their own property to invade your privacy. You are in the wrong, and you admitted that by intentially resorting to confusing property (a beeper) with privacy (communications). You can post links to thousands of classic Karl Rove type defenses (straw man, etc.) it does not stop the truth that physical property and private communications are as different as night and day.


Do you have a reading problem.

"
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.
"

Since the pager or its service did not belong to the employee, and was not public property. The ruling actually upheld the fourth, because "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" in this case is applying to the employer. You are arguing against the forth amendment.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Do you have a reading problem.

"
Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.
"

Since the pager or its service did not belong to the employee, and was not public property. The ruling actually upheld the fourth, because "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" in this case is applying to the employer. You are arguing against the forth amendment.

Since the pager was used in his house and car and on his person outside the workplace, the ruling actually violates the 4th Amendment. You are now just being funny.

There is also an argument that personal communications in the workplace also should have protection under the 4th amendment. A person makes a phone call to his wife while at work, is that conversation owned by the employer? Is there proper notice to this possibility at the workplace?
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
Since the pager was used in his house and car and on his person outside the workplace, the ruling actually violates the 4th Amendment. You are now just being funny.

There is also an argument that personal communications in the workplace also should have protection under the 4th amendment. A person makes a phone call to his wife while at work, is that conversation owned by the employer? Is there proper notice to this possibility at the workplace?

So if I stole your computer, used it at my house, it becomes mine. hmm. I am liking you logic more and more.

And to your second question, the answer is yes. That is why it is a bad idea to use company property for personal things. It is theft, generally tolerated theft, but still theft.

Again you failed to read the forth. The forth talks about being secure in person and property. The property, including the communication service, belongs to the company. Saying a company doesn't have the right to monitor its commutations would be a violation of the 4th, not a protection of it.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
So if I stole your computer, used it at my house, it becomes mine. hmm. I am liking you logic more and more.

Nope, that is theft and you again are confusing physical property with electronic communications. I am unsure why you keep doing this, is it the logic of repeating a fallicy over and over again or something? Also, why would you like this, that does not make any sense at all.

Quote
And to your second question, the answer is yes.

That is not true, private electronic communications are not owned by the company and even if they tell you that they snoop, once a personal conversation occurs, standing legal precedent dictates they are to stop snooping.

Quote
That is why it is a bad idea to use company property for personal things.

Absolutely, but bad ideas by one person does not warrant wholesale rape of the constitution for 300+ million and the next 10 generations. Soon you will be unable to not use a company device and it is important to understand the continued violations to privacy going on. What about company clothing if you work at Wal Mart or somewhere else. Does the employer own all of your body movements that are recorded by the clothing? Don't you feel that is a violation of civil rights?

Quote
It is theft, generally tolerated theft, but still theft.

Yes, that is the problem, they are stealing private communications and it is generally tolerated theft. It also is a violation of civil liberties.

Quote
Again you failed to read the forth. The forth talks about being secure in person and property. The property, including the communication service, belongs to the company. Saying a company doesn't have the right to monitor its commutations would be a violation of the 4th, not a protection of it.

Again, you continue to collapse things. Your communications are not their property. They are part of your persons to be protected by the 4th Amendment. That is the very definition of "personal communication". They are personal, they are not work related. They are not owned by the emploer, they are part of a civil liberty to have the god given right to privacy. Your argument about a company needing to be protected by the 4th Amendment is exactly another point that needs to be exposed. A corporation has no bill of rights whatsoever. The bill of rights are just a reinforcement of god given rights.

as explained in the Declaration of Independence, our rights are given to us by our creator. this is the heart of the matter. by you saying that the 4th (or any right in the bill of rights) applies to a man made fabricated entity denies the entire constitution's essense.

the essence of the constitution is to protect the individual from encroaching government tyranny.  the foundation of this country is we the people. the foundation is not to protect corporations (which are being consolidated to limited companies owned by the international elite) from the rights of man and individual freedom.

What this really speaks of as well is the collusion of large government with large corporatism. And everybody knows that is the definition of fascism.
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
THIS IS THE GAMEPLAN!

THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE 9-0 SUPREME COURT DECISION!

THEY ARE ALL RELATED!



Remember that school that was spying on kids? Well now it’s creepier
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/02/24/remember-that-school-that-was-spying-on-kids-well-now-its-creepier/
by John Biggs on February 24, 2010

The Lower Merion School District (motto: “We’re Building the Future Police State”), caught using a remote monitoring service on school-supplied laptops while the kids were at home, had some pretty creepy rules on the books to ensure compliance. To wit we find, thanks to strydehax, these gems:

   * Possession of a monitored Macbook was required for classes
    * Possession of an unmonitored personal computer was forbidden and would be confiscated
    * Disabling the camera was impossible
    * Jailbreaking a school laptop in order to secure it or monitor it against intrusion was an offense which merited expulsion


Expulsion, eh? Pretty rough stuff. But shouldn’t the school district be able to protect their investment? Well, the reason this all came up was that a kid in the district was caught eating Mike-n-Ikes at home. The principal called him in for eating candy and, presumably, this school watching this kid in his own room.

This means, in an effort to prevent theft, there was some potential pedophilia happening here.

That’s not all. Here’s the PA tech guy, Mike Perbix, talking about the tracking program, LANDRev in a promotional video:

And then there are these testimonials by students at the school, including:

    ” had brought in my own personal computer to work on a project for school one day. I was doing a presentation involving programs not available on the regular computers, only in specific labs. I happened to have a copy of my own. My personal property was confiscated from me in a study hall when I was working on a school assignment because it was against the schools ‘code of conduct’.”

What we have here is a perfect example of why technology, thrown willy-nilly at children, is bad. These laptops gave school authorities the ability to spy on their charges in their own homes. You can see the board meeting now: “Let’s give the kids laptops.” “How do we make sure they don’t look at porn?” “We’ll watch them. I know these dudes with a great solution.” And so it begins. A great idea – giving kids technology – turns into reducing the learning opportunities by essentially making that technology useless. If I were in a flamewar kind of mood, I’d say this is what stymies the One Laptop Per Child project as well. It’s the assumption that kids will break your stuff and so they deserve hobbled hardware. Technology, when misused, does not augment teaching. Instead, it gets in the way of it. This is a dark day for education and will cast a pall over future laptop loaner programs. These administrators should be ashamed.

via BoingBoing

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