The 4th amendment

[gholtron]

For those of you that are Glen Greenwald and Ed Snowden fans, I like to present the 4th amendment and ask some questions.

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.

My questions

Has the NSA or any government agency invaded your home and placed hidden microphones in your place of dwelling?

Has the NSA or any government agency seized your computer or put spyware on your computer to obtain information by you?

Has the NSA or any government agency searched your mailbox or your place of dwelling to obtain letters or other documents written by or to you?

Has the NSA or any government agency seized your phone and cloned it or interrogated it to obtain information from it?

Do you own the internet?

Do you own the storage place by where your information is placed once you hit the send button?

Do you own the air space or networks by which your communications travels?

Did the privacy agreement that you agreed to with your provider say that you owned the information that is stored?

Did the privacy agreement say that it will not abide by law enforcement warrants when it is legally served?

If you didn’t answer yes to any of the above questions, then please explain to me how you were violated by the 4th amendment?

The NSA has probable cause to search the provider’s property because of terrorist were using their equipment for to plot against the USA.

[leveymg]

1. If you can't spell the name of your target, "Glen" (sic) Greenwald, why should we take your

question seriously?

Short answer is to be found in the Circuit court and Supreme Court decisions on "expectation of privacy." Look it up and study it for a few years. These questions have all been handled far more competently than the stew to which you've managed to condense it here.

[gholtron]

4. The short answer is

You don't know or understand the Supreme Court decision on expectation of privacy. If you did, you would have told us and not make a cheap cop out response.

Oh by the way, thanks for alerting me to the mis-spelling of Mr. Greenwald's name. I will make that change if it makes you happy.

[leveymg]

14. This is probably the best summary of the technologies and case law (to 2004) out there:

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_magazine_home/crimjust_cjmag_19_1_surveillance.html

The bottom line is the SCOTUS hasn't ruled on splits between the circuits about 4th Amend. email content, particularly that stored in 3rd party servers, even though by statute that is supposed to be secure. Content of phone calls requires a warrant but not metadata, which is swept up wholesale. First class mail is protected. Otherwise, things like bank records are open to search by issuance of Administrative letters, or they were until April when a court within the 9th Circuit found most of that method of gov't access to be illegal.

[intaglio]

7. And if you choose to respond with only an ad hom

why should we think you in any way serious?

[Scuba]

2. 1. Yes

They track every phone call and text message and blog post I make.

I am not a fan of Snowden, nor do I hate him. I'm glad his actions brought the spying to light.

Note the words "probable cause" in the 4th. NSA is clealy violating that.

[gholtron]

5. Again

Did they come in your place of dwelling or searched you or the equipment that you own with or without a warrant to do so?
I'm sure you can provide prove that they did.

[leveymg]

22. You forgot the "secure in papers, and effects" part. 4th Amend. isn't just houses.

Most courts have held those terms to apply to email and phone messages. The Katz distinction applies to the requirement for a warrant to tap phones, but found no such requirement for metadata, akin to the earlier distinction between the content of mail and the addresses on the envelope.

[gholtron]

27. Has it been proven that the government read any emails without warrants?

If so, please provide proof. Collection of data is not against the 4th amendment.

[leveymg]

41. That was established by several NSA whistleblowers and lawsuits. Read this

about Bill Binney, for instance, and come back:

http://civic.mit.edu/blog/schock/the-government-is-profiling-you-william-binney-former-nsa

and Tom Drake:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer

and the EFF lawsuit, Jewel v NSA:

https://www.eff.org/cases/jewel

[davidn3600]

32. They dont have to come into your place of dwelling to get the info they want

That's the problem...they are going around the 4th amendment.

"We wont bust down your door (yet). We will just spy on you and get the info we want."

[gholtron]

46. Going Around is not the same is violating

I would be more worried about what agreement that you agreed to when signing up with your provider. For example, who owns the emails and who they can share it with.

[davidn3600]

61. The phone company doesn't share that info with the government without a warrant

[Scuba]

40. Yes, they did. They entered electronically.

[intaglio]

9. You confuse published (ie public) information

with private.

The metadata is analogous to the envelope on a letter, do you object to the US Postal Service looking at an envelope and drawing conclusions from that? If you do then you will never have a letter sent, an email directed or a phone call connected.

Oh, and the NSA does not necessarily look at all metadata.

[Scuba]

91. No, I'm not confused.

I do indeed object to the US Postal Service looking at an envelope and drawing conclusions without reasonable cause.

[intaglio]

96. Did you actually read what you wrote?

So when do you stop the USPS looking at your envelope?

Perhaps the address?
What if the stamp is under value for the package?
What if there is a fragment of wire near the seal?
Maybe there is some fine white powder escaping.
What of false return addresses? What about a dubious addressee?
What about packaging that is disintegrating letting that nice scarf Auntie Maude knit for you to become damaged?

In other words you are talking without thinking.

[Scuba]

106. It's not the looking, it's intent and purpose of the looking, and the concluding.

[intaglio]

115. Ok, so the intent of the USPS looking at an envelope is manyfold

in no particular order:
The value of the stamp, the package weight, the package security, the delivery address, the return address, there may also be metal detection and possibly chemical detection.

Much of the info is put on computer and coding added to the package. Sometimes that computer will come up with a variant of "put this package aside for further examination" and a postal inspector will look at it. The reason might be a suspect address or addressee but there could be other reasons.

There is no intent in any of this to search and seize but that might happen based on simple evidence gathered from normal processes.

Now an e-mail has its own "envelope" and this is examined by your mail server. This information, much like suspect address info or unusual packaging is passed to the nasty evil Feds who will note the mail going to a Jihadist site or the money going to that address in Bolivia. At this point they will ask for permission to look at the content ...

[baldguy]

11. Question: Who owns your phone records?

Who owns your text messages and emails? Who owns your blog posts?

Before your start crying about your 4th Amendment rights you should know just whose rights they are.

[boston bean]

15. The phone co does.

That doesn't mean they have the right to collude with the government in violating the fourth amendment. Ie providing everyone's records to a govt spy agency without probable cause.

Please just think of what you are saying.

[baldguy]

25. If the courts say metadata isn't priviledged (& they have) phone co.s certainly do have the right.

And that's why the govt delivers that warrant for the actual content of phone calls to the carrier, and not to the person who made the call. The person that made the call doesn't own the record of the cal OR the content of the call.

And the fans of Snowden & Greenwald either can't be bothered to understand that, or they're perfectly OK with it as long as they can bash Democrats with the info.

[boston bean]

29. They have placed a broad sweeping warrant that collects my info or your info.

It is being collected by a govt spy agency.

There is no reason for the govt to have these records on innocent persons not targeted in a criminal investigation.

It has always been probable cause first. They don't have probable cause to collect this info to rule me in or out of anything.

[baldguy]

98. Do I have to repeat myself? You've already agreed that your metadata doesn't belong to you.

And once your hit send your emails & texts don't belong to you either. The stuff you type here is owned by something called "Democratic Underground, LLC". It's not yours & you have no say over who has access to it.

This isn't a 4th Amendment issue - FISA goes back to 1978. AT&T's monopoly powers go back to at least 1913. You didn't own your phone; you didn't own the network you made your calls on. It didn't really change when AT&T was broken up in 1984 either, because you still didn't own the network you made your calls on. Our entire electronic communications network and all the information on it - telephone, cell phone, internet, email, text messages, fax, VOIP, etc. etc. - is the privately owned property of a handful of massive corporations. AND THEY CAN DO ANYTHING - ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING - THEY WANT WITH THE INFORMATION YOU GIVE TO THEM.

It's as if the fans of Snowden & Greenwald just woke up yesterday and found out they were being screwed. You don't like FISA, you don't like PRISM, you don't like the NSA, you don't like the USA PATRIOT Act - BUT YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHY! You were just told that they were bad.

Greenwald isn't going to tell you, because he's a corporate stooge. And Snowden is too naive or ignorant to care. (He was a big fan of the creeping security state until very recently). And they've both been promoting lies & more lies that are swallowed whole by their low information sycophants.

So, like mindless lemmings you follow exactly where the corporate stooge & the RW libertarian douchebag leads you & lay every last bit of the blame for this sorry situation at the feet of Obama & nobody else. Exactly where it doesn't belong.

[boston bean]

100. It doesn't belong to the govt either. Wtf?????

Get a grip.

The companies promise to protect our privacy.

That is why the are saying they only do this if compelled to legally.

My point is it flies in the face of the fourth amendment as there is no probable cause the warrant is based upon.

Ffs!

[baldguy]

105. And I get called a fascist & a goose-stepping authoritarian when I question

The Voice Of GOD Glenn Greenwald!

FFS indeed.

[baldguy]

119. It's like we're the Israelites enslaved in Egypt

and Greenwald has you complaining about the food.

[Scuba]

42. I'm not a fan of Snowden or Greenwald and I have no desire to bash Democrats.

Your casual dismissal of the critics is unbecoming.

[gholtron]

52. I was simply asking questions

How is that a dismissal of anyone? I thought that we live in a country where we can debates. Find anything where I bashed or to use your words, dismissed anyone just because I disagree with them about Snowden. Your accusation is insulting, unfounded and unbecoming. If you can't handle a civil debate then you should not even commented.

[Scuba]

55. "... fans of Snowden & Greenwald ...can't be bothered ... as long as they can bash Democrats ..."

Labelling those who criticize NSA spying as "fans of Snowden & Greenwald" is a dismissal in and of itself.

[gholtron]

58. So I can't address Fans of Snowden and Greenwald to ask questions?

Please.
Do not read any of my post. Because apparently only YOU have a problem with the titles.
Have a great day.

[baldguy]

90. I you're OK with painting DUrs critical of Snowden & Green as fascists, Stalinists, authoritarians,

And a whole host of other ugly epithets, huh?

Because THAT'S not dismissive, is it?

[Scuba]

92. I'm sorry, can you please link me to the post where I did any such thing?

I thought not.

[baldguy]

107. There's more going on than just criticism of the NSA.

The people you're siding with - the fans of Snowden & Greenwald - are pulling out all the stops, making these unfounded accusations of the critics of Snowden & Greenwald - yet their heroes promote real fascism.

[Scuba]

109. You accused me personally of supporting slander with fascist and other labels. Back it up.

[baldguy]

113. As if ignoring the full range of issues isn't dismissive....

[burnodo]

3. I remember when "terrorism" used to be a concept

Now it's a carte blanche for violating the constitution, beefing up an already beefy surveillance and war state. Seriously, everyone here berated Bush for declaring a "War on Terra" but now its being justified because there's a D who is the titular head of the same establishment.

[intaglio]

12. No, the case law as it now stands allows this

and the Constitution says nothing about examination of published information. Published information can also include the address and return address on the envelope of a letter and the metadata surrounding a phone call or e-mail.

[burnodo]

19. According to you

According to many, many others its a breach of the constitution.

[intaglio]

30. Not according to Smith v Maryland

and SCotUS seems uninterested in hearing further cases (Hepting v AT&T) 2012.

Please explain how publicly published information can be held to be private.

[leveymg]

23. Now it's an algorithm. eom

[baldguy]

6. Fans of Greenwald and Snowden hate the govt in all it's forms.

But they're perfectly OK having corporations control our lives.

[99Forever]

13. Oh really?

Got some links of people saying that to prove it?

Or did you just pull that nugget from your nether regions?


Hmmmmmmm?

[leveymg]

26. You just did a 180 and crashed and burned there. Privatization of nat'l security is offensive.

So is misrepresentation of the opinion of those with whom you disagree.

[Scuba]

44. Another pathetic dismissal of those who would challenge NSA and private corporation spying.

[whatchamacallit]

57. Could you be more full of shit?

Sounds like "all liberals are on welfare", something your pals on FR would say. Also, what democrats are perfectly OK with corporate control (beside the president)?

[boston bean]

8. "and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"

Makes it clear to me that collecting and seizing everyone's record with no probable cause is a violation of the fourth amendment.

[NutmegYankee]

10. But they argue that the searches aren't "unreasonable".

Obviously many DUers argue over what is reasonable. I take a very narrow approach, as in None.

[intaglio]

16. What do you think is illegally searched?

The metadata? That cannot be illegally searched because that is published information about the target of your phone call or e-mail and the "return address" so that proper notifications can be returned to you.

The search of content has the approval of FISC although that does seem in the nature of a rubber stamp.

[boston bean]

21. Please read carefully.

They collect my data even though I am innocent and they have no probable cause to do so.

The phone company having these records can't subject me to a criminal proceeding.

Once the government stores collects and queries my info in a criminal investigation, of which i am or am not the subject of, without probable cause the have violated the fourth amendment, IMHO.

[intaglio]

35. Please read carefully - the data collected is not private. n/t

[boston bean]

38. It isn't. So, all this time the govt hasn't needed any probable cause

To gain access to records from companies. Why do we have a fisa court at all then?

Seems to me the sweeping warrants they issue to these corps are lacking probable cause.

[intaglio]

48. You are conflating public information with private

A letter in an envelope is private, the envelope and what is written on it is public.

The text of an e-mail is private, the metadata is public.

A conversation on the phone is private, the number you dial and the number you are calling from are public. What is worse is that on a cellphone your approximate location is public information. If you use a smartphone then it is likely that your precise location is public (assuming you have agreed to such tracking data).

If you write or phone or e-mail a drug dealer then there will be probable cause for investigators to read your letter or e-mail or to listen to the phone call. If you have encrypted or scrambled that particular letter, e-mail or voice then the investigators have the right to hold a record of that communication until such time as it can be decrypted.

If you display the numberplate on your car many automatic numberplate recognition systems can track your vehicle, and will alert the police or the DMV if there are violations - the number on the plate is public information.

[boston bean]

49. You are not taking into consideration of probable cause.

If all they needed was a record of my phone number they could use a phone book.

However they are collecting more information than that ie who you called and for how long, which normally requires probable cause and a warrant.

They have the warrant. What is the probable cause?

My neighbor can't get the records of my calls from the phone co, so obviously it is not public information.

[intaglio]

65. Do the authorities need probable cause to look at an envelope?

Or can the envelope provide probable cause to look within?

[boston bean]

68. I believe they need probable cause to

Use the evidence that may come from a warrant in any court proceeding.

Here the warrant comes first then probable cause.

[intaglio]

70. Then do not look forward to the USPS delivering any of your mail n/t

[gholtron]

24. EXACTLY.

It's no different when the phone companies publishes your phone number in the yellow book.

[gholtron]

18. If the government went to everyone's place of dwelling

to collect the information then I would agree with you. Once you hit the send button, you don't own it anymore. The providers own it and you signed an agreement that they will give it up upon a legally served subpoena.

[leveymg]

43. Does a letter leave your house, gholtron? Does the 4th Amend not apply to "letters, and effects"?

You're misrepresenting the full panapoly of 4th Amendment protections. That is either profoundly ignorant or misleading of you.

[gholtron]

47. When I send a letter,

It goes to the post office. The government collects my letter to be sent. The government does not have the right to open my letter without my consent. Collection is not a violation of the 4th amendment. Opening it and reading it is a violation of the 4th amendment. Storing of emails is NOT a violation of the 4th amendment. Collecting Meta Data is not a violation of the 4th amendment. Read what Glenn, ( I spelled his name right just for you) wrote. He said that the government is "Capable" of reading and can "collect Billions of emails". He parsing words to scare you. He did not provide PROOF where the government has read the contents of your emails without a warrant. In fact he does not even mention it. This is a scare tactic he is using.

[leveymg]

53. The pre-2008 FAA Terrorist Surveillance Program (The Program) swept up everything,

content included, and assembled profiles of everybody. That's what Binney and Drake tell us, and they were certainly in a position to know. The EFF suits showed the same thing.

What happens now is that all that data has been harvested and resides in a number of gov't agency databases, and is compared to your metadata whenever you make a call or email. If you score high enough based upon the profile (algorithm), the system red flags you for a warrant. The system takes another look at you in the meantime, before FISC issues the warrant (the law gives NSA 72 hrs. to seek a warrant, and 7 days in "exigent circumstances&quot , and the content gathered (which Binney says has been encrypted but not destroyed) spills out and gets added to the analyst's "book".

Now, tell me how, in effect, that sort of profiling is really any different from what was going on before?

[gholtron]

56. Good response

However, meta data is public information and it is NOT covered under the 4th amendment. They were building a profile using meta data. The NSA even admits that. What is not been proven is the government read the contents of all the data that was collected. You said in your response that after building a profile based on meta data, a warrant is sought to go further. That tells me that the laws were followed. I think that the fact of collection of data is scaring people and what good reason; however, collection is not a violation. I hope the ALCU does challenge this to the courts. It would either put an end to the collection if the courts find it unconstitutional or it will put to rest the collection is not a violation.

[gholtron]

59. Let me make a correction

Collection of meta data from a provider storage with a warrant is not a violation of the 4th amendment.

[boston bean]

64. What is the probable cause for these warrants that give authority

To the govt to collect information on who you called, who called you, and for how long?

They are collecting it on everyone. Common sense tells me they are lacking probable cause for the warrant, and in doing so violate the fourth amendment.

[gholtron]

69. The probable Cause is

there are terrorist that are using the provider's equipment to cause harm to the citizens of the USA. The collection meta data is used to create a profile of those that want to do us harm. A warrant is sought to collect the meta data which is public information, from the storage of the provider such as Verizon. We don't own meta data.

[boston bean]

73. They have no probably cause to collect my data.

If I were the target of an investigation they could procure a warrant based on probable cause.

In criminal proceedings throughout this nation probable cause in issuing a warrant to a company to provide this info is common place.

If it wasnt why have warrants at all???

They could just demand it.

[gholtron]

78. Your data is wrapped up in a file.

The information IN that file is yours. The file and the wrapping of it, meta data, is NOT yours. collection of the meta data is legal. They cannot READ the content of the file without a warrant.

[boston bean]

80. You are being obtuse.

What probable cause do they have to collect my data for use in a possible future court proceeding, when there is no probable cause that I committed a crime?

Judges issue warrants based on probable cause for this info..it's not just readily handed over the govt entities without a warrant based an probable cause.

What the govt is dong here is getting a warrant, there is no probable cause for them to have access to my records.

[leveymg]

84. No. The profile is based in all gov't databanks. Those other databanks contain illegally obtained

info. The NSA says it destroyed its own master tape of the raw content obtained without warrants, but the other agencies (FBI, CIA, DHS, ICE, DOS, etc. ) have not purged their own files of processed data. They obviously don't want to, and it would be almost impossible to do so without wiping out all the internal security and foreign intel files. So, the profiling system pretty much has not changed.

[leveymg]

79. No. Binney and Drake say that content was also being intercepted and stored in bulk. That's illegal

All that warrantless "take" was datamined to create those profiles which are still in other databases that PRISM interfaces with. How is that different from what was happening before, or any more legal? So long as that illegally obtained data still exists and is utilized (in processed form), the system is still in violation of the warrant requirement of the 4th Amendment. They would have to purge all those databases, governmentwide, of all that illegally obtained information, which they aren't about to do.

It's still being operated illegally -- the profiling process employs illegally obtained information -- even if the system is automated to indicate that a warrant should be obtained by the analyst.

[boston bean]

54. What are they collecting and storing it for?

Please tell me.

[gholtron]

63. Read The pre-2008 FAA Terrorist Surveillance Program (The Program) swept up everything,

response to me above written by leveymg . It was an excellent response; however I think it was meant to challenge my response.

[boston bean]

67. Not exactly the response I was looking for, if you gave it have a second and thought about

the question.

Are you saying there is probable cause to collect this information on every single American who owns a phone?

If not and they are using it to use at some future date in a possible criminal investigation, you ought to be about pissing your pants right about now.

Think about what you are implying with you responses in this thread.

[gholtron]

74. Prove to me that meta data is subject to the 4th amendment?

You are using a private company's network to send your private information. Did you read the agreement that you signed to use their network to send your emails and phone calls? Tell me what it says when it is presented with a legal subpoena? I would be more worried about WHAT my provider can do with the information that I provide it with. And I piss in a toilet not my pants.
Well sometimes at the side of the road when I can hold it

[boston bean]

76. Prove to me it's not.

Everyday in this country in criminal proceedings, the police can't just make a company and over this info.

There has got to be probable cause then a judge issues a warrant.

It's not the other way around.

[gholtron]

83. Here you go

Justice Scalia quipped that, “the founding fathers would hardly have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

This is a classic case of why scale and quantity matter. The government’s case is that a phone call is like a letter you put in the mail. Your address, the sender’s and the size (and weight!) of the envelope are public knowledge, but the contents of the letter are private and secure.

link
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2013/06/07/nsas-verizon-spying-order-fourth-amendment-and-big-data-on-a-collision-course/

Have a good day.

[boston bean]

86. Is a warrant needed for the govt to collect this info?

If so, they need probable cause, period. Especially if they intend to store and possibly use in future criminal proceedings.

[LWolf]

17. Strawman.

Opposing NSA data collecting does not make one a "fan" of Greenwald or Snowden.

[gholtron]

20. You're missing the point.

Tell me how you were violated?

[cantbeserious]

28. You Are Clearly Parsing The Amendment To Make An Argument Which Justifies Government Surveillance

eom

[gholtron]

34. Yes I am.

And Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Snowden are doing the exact same thing about scaring you that the government is violating your 4th amendment rights. Especially when they use words like they have the capability to read and hold billions of emails. Now tell me who is parsing.

[cantbeserious]

36. That You Justify The Wanton Desecration Of The 4th Amendment Is Telling - We Know Where You Stand

eom

[LWolf]

31. No.

YOU are missing the point. As evidenced by your referencing personalities, and by your use of terrorism to justify the invasion of privacy.

Our government does not need to collect meta-data on every citizen to combat terrorism; nor do their corporate sharks.

[intaglio]

37. And why is published information, private?

please say.

[LWolf]

45. "Published."

When I send an email, I send it to specific people. I haven't publicly "published" it. Phone calls? Made to specific people. Not "public." When I post on the internet, of course, that is public.

When I purchase something online, that is a transaction between myself and the seller. That is not public.

Why do we use screen names when we post on DU? Because we want some privacy, even when we are having "public" conversations.

Or is "intaglio" your real name?

[boston bean]

51. I didn't know, but according to intaglio

All records of my phone use is public and searchable by my neighbors.

I have an unlisted number for a reason. Why is that option even available to me?

[LWolf]

95. I think that the law hasn't kept up well with

advances in communication, and the Patriot Act has conveniently blurred boundaries even further. The 4th amendment, while critical, is too narrow in scope for my liking. I'd like an amendment that broadened and deepened our right to privacy, with no gray areas.

Of course, I think it ought to be against the law to take a photo or video of anyone without their express permission, too. But that's me.

[intaglio]

62. Yes, you have published

you may not be aware of it but your computer pack up your digital information into packages preceded and concluded by meta. That meta marks what comes between as private; if not there anyone transmitting on the packets so sent would not have any indication of the difference between routing and format information (which of necessity has to be public) and the content of the message (private)

The same thing happens with digitally transmitted phone messages. If you dial a number you are publishing it to the various networks through which your phone call passes.

This information is, exactly like an envelope, public, there is essentially no difference. The only real difference is that you do not see that data and, like many here, assumed it did not exist.

Regarding my name; it was chosen several years ago for a more themed message board. I like the sound of the word in the original Italian (gli having a pronunciation very different from normal English). It is also does not contain any gender information in English. It does keep casual trolls from flooding my e-mail but I've never assumed that it would keep any government agency from finding me.

[LWolf]

94. Of course there is a difference.

The difference is in intent. You are trying to explain the system of communication. I am talking about what is said publicly and what is said privately.

Those are two different things. I am an advocate of keeping my private information private. Using a communication system should not mean that anything I communicated belongs to anyone; it belongs to whomever I was communicating with.

It's a slippery slope to justify outsiders "owning" any individual's communications. A slope I'm not willing to ski down for the sake of any political administration, Democratic or not.

[gholtron]

39. Then the Ex Mayor of Detroit

4th Amendment rights were violated by the FBI when they used text messages that he sent in the fraud case that was built against him. The collection of data was at the place of the provider who OWNS the emails and the equipment that it was stored to collect the Meta Data that was provided by the provider in which case is Verizon. Had they read the emails or the contents of the email which are YOUR words without a warrant, that would be a violation of the 4th amendment. Collection is NOT a violation of the 4th amendment.

[leveymg]

33. Are you talking about pre or post-2010 email, pre-2008 FAA, pre-2006 Patriot reauthorization or

some other landmark? Ask a vague question, and people won't give you satisfactory answers.

[ljm2002]

50. In the modern day and age...

...email counts as mail.

I don't own the USPS mailboxes either; that doesn't mean my snail mail is or should be subjected to random mass scanning of its origin, or its destination, both geographically and w.r.t. the identities of the people involved; nor should its contents be scanned and stored.

When it comes to air space or networks, I would argue that like the broadcast channels, yes the public does own them in the same sense; and that when the usage terms are violated, the entities that are violating those usage terms should have their access terminated.

The privacy agreement did not say anything about EVERYTHING being scanned and retained by the government. There was never any indication of that in any privacy agreement I've ever read.

Your last sentence is a pathetic misunderstanding of the law. Since "the providers" are the big companies whose devices service all of the Internet, what you are saying is that the government gets to scan everything because terrorists are lurking.

[former9thward]

60. The answer to the first four questions are yes.

The NSA's super computers at Ft. Meade, Maryland sweep any electronic communications (emails, phone, etc.) that are made. They look for various words and patterns. When they find something it is kicked to humans. As far as letters are concerned it is also yes. I was active in organizing protests against the Vietnam war. Upon their request I just turned over my FBI file to the archives of my undergraduate university. The file shows how the FBI and local police tracked me (including what concerts I went to!) and letters I sent or were sent to me. I am amused at the naivety of the present generation and dismayed at their worship of The Authority.

[gholtron]

66. I'm sorry about what happened to you

Are you saying that read your emails listened to your phone calls without warrants?

[former9thward]

71. Not mine - everyone's.

The computers have no idea whose emails and phone calls they are listening to. They are all swept up. When I hit the "post my reply" button on this post it will be swept up. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/nsa-finder-keeper-countless-secrets-article-1.1367431

[G_j]

72. Yes

for all intent and purposes, yes.

[G_j]

75. People Who Urge Calm Over NSA Spying Make Me Nervous

http://www.fair.org/blog/2013/06/25/people-who-urge-calm-over-nsa-spying-make-me-nervous/

People Who Urge Calm Over NSA Spying Make Me Nervous

Posted by Jim Naureckas


"There are reasons to be concerned about intelligence-agency overreach, excessive secrecy, and lack of transparency," wrote Hendrik Hertzberg in a New Yorker piece (6/24/13) about NSA surveillance revelations. "But there are also reasons to remain calm."

It's his reasons to remain calm that make me nervous.

"They have not put the lives of tens of millions of Americans under 'surveillance' as that word is commonly understood," Hertzberg writes; with "every American's phone calls," the government is merely recording "the time and the duration of the calls, along with the numbers and, potentially, the locations of the callers and the called."

Really? If government agents followed Hertzberg around, keeping tabs on where he went and how long he stayed there, and entering these facts into a government database, I would think he would acknowledge that he was under surveillance–even if the agents didn't get close enough to overhear his conversations. Likewise, if the government had a record of who was contacting whom through the mail–who, for example, was getting a periodical-rate mailing from the New Yorker every week–surely this would be understood to be a surveillance program.

But, Hertzberg reassures, none of the info the NSA collects on every phone call is "ever seen by human eyes except in the comparatively tiny number of instances in which a computer algorithm flags one for further examination, in which case—at least, since 2008—a judicial warrant is legally required."

So unless your pattern of phone calls are deemed to be somehow suspicious–and who know what that means, because, as Hertzberg stresses, they're looking for people who are calling "unknown, unsuspected terrorists"–the government won't go to a secret Star Chamber to get rubber-stamp approval to listen in on your actual conversations. This is what Hertzberg means when he says, "From what we know so far about these NSA programs…they have been conducted lawfully." Feel reassured yet?

Hertzberg goes on to say of NSA spying programs:

The threat that they pose to civil liberties, such as it is, is abstract, conjectural, unspecified. In the roughly seven years the programs have been in place in roughly their present form, no citizen's freedom of speech, expression or association has been abridged by them in any identifiable way. No political critic of the administration has been harassed or blackmailed as a consequence of them.

It's a defense often made of NSA surveillance, and it's peculiar: It's as if it's not possible for the government to violate people's Fourth Amendment rights (to be protected against "unreasonable searches and seizures&quot unless it violates their First Amendment rights at the same time.

In reality, of course, our civil liberties are violated–concretely, certainly and specifically–whenever we are subjected to an unreasonable search, which is to say one that is conducted without a judge having been convinced to warrant that there is probable cause to believe that we've done something wrong. It's not OK for the government to sneak into our homes just to have a look around–even if they don't use what they saw there to mess with us.

[gholtron]

93. If I didn't trust our Government

Then I would do one of two things. Change the government by voting OR leave this country. I am more worried to trusting corporations than our government. Example these private contractors. Corporations are here for one reason and that is to make money no matter how. Let me ask you this, who is going to protect you from the corporations?

[G_j]

116. LoL

I've been consistently voting for over 40 years. You think I should leave the country? That's rich.

[Apophis]

77. Oh FFS.

[GoneFishin]

81. Since you address a broad DU audience I will respond in the same context.

Has the NSA or any government agency invaded your home and placed hidden microphones in your place of dwelling?
I DON'T KNOW.

Has the NSA or any government agency seized your computer or put spyware on your computer to obtain information by you?
I DON'T KNOW.

Has the NSA or any government agency searched your mailbox or your place of dwelling to obtain letters or other documents written by or to you?
I DON'T KNOW.

Has the NSA or any government agency seized your phone and cloned it or interrogated it to obtain information from it?
I DON'T KNOW.

Do you own the internet?
NO. Except for possibly portions being part of the public commons.

Do you own the storage place by where your information is placed once you hit the send button? NO.

Do you own the air space or networks by which your communications travels?
NO. Except for possibly portions being part of the public commons.

Did the privacy agreement that you agreed to with your provider say that you owned the information that is stored?
UNLIKELY.

Did the privacy agreement say that it will not abide by law enforcement warrants when it is legally served?
UNLIKELY.

Regarding your statement :
" The NSA has probable cause to search the provider’s property because of terrorist were using their equipment for to plot against the USA."

Now answer this : What is cited on these warrants which complies with the requirement for :
"probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

It does not say "generally describing", or "sort of describing", "sometimes describing", it says particularly describing.

Broad dragnets for "all the phone records" for "anyone that uses a phone", in "all storage locations where those records may be stored" do not meet the requirement to particularly describe.

To me the inclusion of this requirement is a clear indication that the writers of the 4th amendment anticipated precisely these kind of fishing expeditions and sought to prevent them.

Your word game is cute but I could make your same arguments to justify department stores pointing security cameras up women's dresses in the name of catching shop lifters. But those arguments would be just as bogus. Because peoples privacy is being invaded.

[gholtron]

89. Then I guess we agree to disagree about the interpretation of the 4th amendment.

I have my interpretations and you have yours. Does not mean either one is right or wrong. I feel that my rights are not violated and If I didn't want my private contents to be collected by either the government or corporations, in my opinion are far worse, then I would not subscribe to the internet or phone companies.

[GoneFishin]

97. Fair enough.

[Pholus]

82. So Bush DID NOT break the law?

Good to know.

Your post and argument is very thoughtful though. Certainly I don't have time to demolish it in detail now.

I'll just start off by saying that if you feel okay about all of your hypotheticals, then you are on your way to feeling dead about Democracy and a free society in general.

We, the people, are now all potential terrorists.

It just takes ticking off the wrong LEO who can paint you as a terrorist. Perhaps you complain about your water, for example. Other recent examples of "Terrorists" under Federal definition include Quakers, Occupy, PETA, Greenpeace, and the aforementioned people complaining about their water quality.

In that instant you go from:

"We are not listening to your phone calls." The nice warm fuzzy statement that depends on the smarmy definition that collection is not listening.

to

"We examine every bit of data we have collected on you over the last 10 years." Keep in mind the extent of that data is a closely guarded secret. It definitely includes metadata, financial and some health records. It may rise to the level of actual voice and internet communications.

Thank the maker we won't ever need another MLK, cause one will never rise up against this level of blackmailability.

And somehow, this is consistent with the 4th amendment. MAGIC!

[gholtron]

87. Yes He did and should be proscuted

He did not seek a warrant. He did not go to the FISA courts. He broke the law.

[Pholus]

120. So why wasn't he prosecuted again? nt

[Pholus]

121. Crickets?

Seriously, why wasn't GWB and crew prosecuted for doing dragnet surveillance in an illegal manner?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

85. Congress criminalized certain activities when it adopted 18 USC 2511.

A criminal violation of 18 USC 2511 exists when the related events have occurred and is not depending upon additional elements identified in your OP. All of your additional elements are irrelevant.


From the DOJ's Criminal Resource Manual, 1050:

"Section 2511 of Title 18 prohibits the unauthorized interception, disclosure, and use of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The prohibitions are absolute, subject only to the specific exemptions in Title III. Consequently, unless an interception is specifically authorized, it is impermissible and, assuming existence of the requisite criminal intent, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2511.

"Section 2511(1)(a) is a blanket prohibition against the intentional interception, endeavor to intercept, or procurement of another person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication.

"Section 2511(1)(b) is applicable only to oral communications. It is less pervasive than the prohibition against the interception of oral communications contained in Section 2511(1)(a) and was included because of a question "concerning the constitutionality of Section 2511(1)(a) as it relates to oral communications." See S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 92 (1968); United States v. Burroughs, 564 F.2d 1111, 1115 (4th Cir. 1977). The Criminal Division recommends that Section 2511(1)(b) should be charged in cases involving interception of oral communications. However, although the interception of an oral communication may violate both 2511(1)(a) and (b), a person may be convicted of only one offense under the section. See S.Rep. No. 1097, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. 93 (1968).

"Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) of Title 18 provide additional penalties for the disclosure and use of illegally intercepted communications. The use or disclosure must be accompanied by knowledge or reason to know that the information concerned was obtained through an interception which violated 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1). The knowledge element can be satisfied either when the subject has actual knowledge or when the occurrence of the element "can reasonably be foreseen." Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 9 (1954).
...
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01050.htm

[Democracyinkind]

88. Are the answers to your questions available in the public domain?

[cali]

99. oh for the love of reason. Your questions have to be some of the most foolish questions

ever posed here.

Seriously, that you don't grasp the larger implications of the ever expanding national security state is unbelievably lame.

Thank goodness my Senators and rep do.

[gholtron]

101. Wow an American Citizen can't ask questions without being called names.

So I guess since I won't fall inline to agree with you or someone else then I am labeled. I guess there is no more debate in this country anymore. I guess because I don't agree with cali then I am lame. I wrote this to get some serious debates and I do apologize that my questions are not suitable for you. I guess cali you never ask lame questions do you? Thank you for your well thought out intelligent response.

[cali]

103. care to point out the names I called the OP?

Here's my post, now where are the names I called the op?

oh for the love of reason. Your questions have to be some of the most foolish questions

ever posed here.

Seriously, that you don't grasp the larger implications of the ever expanding national security state is unbelievably lame.

Thank goodness my Senators and rep do.

and your questions were absurd.

Just because something doesn't effect me personally, doesn't make it OK. Discrimination against LGBT folks didn't effect me personally. Jim Crow didn't effect me personally, etc.

grasp it now?

[gholtron]

104. Cali

Do me a favor,
If you're not going to contribute then STFU and go somewhere else.
Thank you.

[cali]

111. follow your own advice- and more, honeypie.

and if you think the likes of YOU will ever silence me, sweetums, you have another thing coming. hard.

[Deep13]

102. Not a "fan," but will answer anyway.

"unreasonable searches and seizures"

Doesn't say anything about cameras, microphones, or even physical invasions.

[Ms. Toad]

108. Then, please use your limitations to explain

why wiretapping requires a warrant.

And - the question on release of information is whether the order pursuant to which the information was gathered violated the constitution. While it may have had the color of law, permitting the provider to release it within the bounds of the contract - the order itself may have been (and I believe it was) unconstitutional.

Now that we have proof of specific targets with standing to test that (which the Supreme Court said was merely speculative when it dismissed the case earlier this year), we will finally be able to have the law reviewed to determine whether it was constitutional or not.

And - your final statement is legal nonsense - since that reasoning would also mean a wiretap, generally accomplished by access to the telephone provider's lines (not the target's property), would never never have required a warrant, either. And we both know it does.

[gholtron]

110. Wire tapping warrant means

Law enforcement want to listen or record conversation which is private to what is being said to use against you in a court. Meta data is the information describing the package of a file or its attributes. Your carrier assigns the data. It may or may not contain your actual name or phone number. It has a form of serial numbers to describe what it is. It does NOT describe the content in a file such as your personal writings or conversations. Reading those without a warrant or probable cause is a violation of the 4th amendment. The question I asked is who owns the meta data?

[Ms. Toad]

112. Not what I asked.

You based your question about the 4th amendment on the literal language of the 4th amendment, as if that literal language is all that determines whether a warrant is needed.

I am asking you to explain why, based on the same literal language, wiretapping requires a warrant. If you can't then your questions are inapplicable to limit the analysis for metadata because the constitutional analysis is already much broader than the literal reading you would apply. Unless, of course, you are also arguing that no warrant should be constitutional required for wiretapping.

[gholtron]

117. Keep in mind that the Constitution was written in the late 18th Centry

Technology has grown to where it puts information in a grey area of what is covered by the 4th amendment and what is not. So the courts not me or you but the courts are left to use the intent of what the founders had to determine what should be covered. I interpreted as personal content whether it be in a form of communication, documentation, or some other tangible form that is within your person or dwelling or place of ownership. Your conversation is considered personal. Meta data is not personal. It is assigned to your personal emails, etc. Collection of meta data is not in violation of the 4th amendment. For example, if you own a car then your car has a VIN number. The VIN number describes what kind of car it is. It describes what kind of engine it has. It describes when and where it was built. The Meta Data is the electronic equivalent of a VIN number. Do you own the VIN number? Is the collection of VIN number covered under the 4th amendment? Again that is my interpretation of the 4th amendment.

[cali]

114. people who support the security state are sad examples of the quiescent

sheep who cannot think for themselves.

[marions ghost]

118. Yep, and the unquiescent make them ve-ry uncomfortable

It's all legal and right and necessary, so shut up