Why does the Government continue to fight the requirement to obtain Warrants?

[n2doc]

Government Continues To Pretend People Use Cell Phones Simply To Create A Wealth Of Data For Law Enforcement To Access Without A Warrant
by Tim Cushing

You'd think approved warrants must be like albino unicorns for all the arguing the government does to avoid having to run one by a judge. It continually acts as though there aren't statistics out there that show obtaining a warrant is about as difficult as obeying the laws of thermodynamics. Wiretap warrants have been approved 99.969% of the time over the last decade. And that's for something far more intrusive than cell site location data.

But still, the government continues to argue that location data, while possibly intrusive, is simply Just Another Business Record -- records it is entitled to have thanks to the Third Party Doctrine. Any legal decision that suggests even the slightest expectation of privacy might have arisen over the past several years as the public's relationship with cell phones has shifted from "luxury item/business tool" to "even grandma has a smartphone" is greeted with reams of paper from the government, all of it metaphorically pounding on the table and shouting "BUSINESS RECORDS!"

When that fails, it pushes for the lower bar of the Stored Communications Act to be applied to its request, dropping it from "probable cause" to "specific and articulable facts." The Stored Communications Act is the lowest bar, seeing as it allows government agencies and law enforcement to access electronic communications older than 180 days without a warrant. It's interesting that the government would invoke this to defend the warrantless access to location metadata, seeing as the term "communications" is part of the law's title. This would seem to imply what's being sought is actual content -- something that normally requires a higher bar to obtain.

But the government never stops defending its normal M.O.: as much as possible with as little paperwork (and judicial oversight) as possible. Here it is responding to a letter sent by defendant Aaron Graham, who has been battling for suppression of 221 days worth of cell site location data (including nearly 30,000 specific data points) the government obtained without a warrant during its investigation of his involvement in a series of robberies.

more
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140712/20511327863/government-continues-to-pretend-people-use-cell-phones-simply-to-create-wealth-data-law-enforcement-to-access-without-warrant.shtml

[Thinkingabout]

1. Any evidence is subject to being gathered when building a case in court. Why would an interest

party in a criminal case not want the authorities to develop a compete case against the criminal. Why does the criminals right overtake the rights of victims. Is this fair? Why not halt DNA? Where does this stop. The best suggestion to those who might be wanting to commit crimes is not to commit the crimes. If wanting a criminal arrested is bad then how does these crimes cease. Why raise hell at the agencies for doing their job, let us raise hell at those who seeks to harm others.

[Pholus]

2. Really easy answers to easy questions.

1) Because, while it is falling out of vogue with the lazy law enforcement mindset we've created, our system was designed to operate under presumption of innocence until proven guilty. That case is compiled within legal guidelines designed to protect the innocents, not the guilty. Next thing you'll be telling me is that the "innocence project" makes their shit up!

2) It is. That is the system we designed out of living under British tyranny (which actually seems rather mild in comparison to what you're saying is absolutely needed here or the "terrorists" errrr "criminals" will have won).

3) Because there is this thing called a warrant where an investigating officer has made a cogent and successful argument to a judge as to why it is reasonable to compel the collection of the evidence. Perhaps you've heard of them..

4) I don't know. Seems these days that the government simply wants every shred of data it can get and to hell with legality or warrants. I think it is intellectual laziness and declining standards in recruitment resulting in the desire to "google" the bad guys rather than actually do real investigative work which is hard.

5) You know, Orson Wells said "A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." He NAILED IT!

6) Through police work within the system that was established. Why are you pretending that only massive police overreach can yield effective results?

7) You can volunteer to the police to search your underwear drawer anytime you want, just don't come crying to me when you end up a victim of a mistake or malice. If you eschew the safety features of the system as it is designed you richly deserve whatever happens to you.

[Thinkingabout]

3. Yep, I can volunteer to help the police, in fact I have at different times, I just happen to be

happy with doing something which is good. Yes I deserve whatever happens to me, and criminals deserve whatever happens to themselves.

[Pholus]

6. Good for you. Me? Glad they're there, but I do have rights and I reserve them all.

Here's a story you should read about someone who seems to be JUST as civic minded and innocent as you are:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302935.html

Best line in there is very telling about the mentality of a group of badass elite swat-team cops (who operate under rules that would have been declared unconstitutional just 30 years back) who just fucked up and raided a mayor as told by an unconnected local officer:

The scene at the house was so terrible and odd to Berwyn Heights officer Johnson that he planted himself in the living room. He couldn't see a search warrant posted anywhere. The mayor looked so vulnerable that Johnson wanted to make sure nothing even worse happened to him, such as getting shot. "Not that I didn't trust the police," Johnson would later say. "But I wanted to personally witness what is going to happen to my mayor, so if they try to say this guy went for a gun -- and he didn't -- it's not going to happen on my watch."

Yeah, I'm gonna blindly trust that the system always works and should be entrusted with more and more power while I surrender more and more of my rights.

Not. That's just too damned naive.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Naive? It is naive to expect my space to be protected and criminals to just walk away any time they

violated my space. No, never.

[Pholus]

20. Uh huh.

I'm thinking Poe's law applies and that I was just a bit slow. At least I HOPE so...

[woo me with science]

4. Look, a post cheering blind totalitarianism!

It's either brilliant satire or the most alarming appeal to stupidity I've ever read. It says absolutely nothing other than that police should be able to gather anything they want:

"Any evidence is subject to being gathered when building a case in court,"

ANY evidence! Anything! Spoken with great authority, no less! To hell with the Constitution, and laws. They can grab anything they please! And the justification? Because wanting criminals arrested is not bad!

If wanting a criminal arrested is bad, then how does these crimes cease"

How does these crimes cease? How does they?! Where does this stop?!

Where, indeed. Me, I'm concerned that anyone trying to market these abuses of power thinks we are this stupid.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.

[Pholus]

7. You know, I'm thinking the first option.

I think I've been played!

[woo me with science]

8. We can only hope...

[Thinkingabout]

9. So you think we should live in a world where criminals has open season on victims? Hell no, the

abuse is coming from the criminals, don't want to do the time then don't do the crime. The right of people to be SECURE in their persons, houses, papers, and effects also applies to criminals. Raise hell at the criminals, they do not have a right to violate other citizens of the US.

[JVS]

13. Part of being secure in your papers is not having the government read all your correspondence just..

because current technology makes it easy for them to file a copy of all your communications stashed away for their use until they suspect that you've committed a crime.

If a wiretap needed a warrant, then the ease of wiretapping everyone automatically shouldn't somehow invalidate that requirement.

[woo me with science]

17. The post you are responding to is utter distraction.

Last edited Tue Jul 15, 2014, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)

They want us batting off idiocy instead of discussing these abuses of power seriously.

[Thinkingabout]

19. Where is everyone being wiretapped?

[ljm2002]

25. You are aware, are you not...

...that cell phone data from all U.S. cell phone users is routinely scooped by our government and saved by them? "But it's only metadata" ... well, a lot can be gleaned from metadata, and I'm not just parroting what I've read about this stuff -- I've worked on software systems that use these sorts of data.

You must be aware of the NSA whistle-blower Russell Tice who says that 80% of all phone communications worldwide go over fiber optic cables in the US and that the NSA scoops up ALL OF IT. They claim that they don't actually "collect" it -- seems to be a fine distinction where they scoop it all up and store it, but don't look at it (most of it, anyway).

Excerpt from Russell Tice interview by Abby Martin on Breaking the Set:

Tice: What’s different about this is at the Orwellian scale. This is the everything scale. This is not just Richard Nixon going after a few, you know, enemies’ list. This is everybody and everything. And now NSA is literally tapping every communication, every digital communication in this country, content, not just the metadata, the content. And when they’re saying, “well, it’s not that far,” once again, they’re lying. They continue to lie about the full capability.

He also says, in his interview with James Corbett (paraphrased as I was typing while listening):

"nsa collects everything. phone calls email skype facebook google they collect everything it's all automated...

they say they don't intercept -- by their definition that means they don't have humans looking at all of that data as it's being collected -- which of course is not possible anyway, but they do collect it all"

He also claims elsewhere that they use the metadata as keys to probe into that vast database (the one that, according to them, they didn't actually "collect" because humans were not involved directly while it was being siphoned off).

Here are a couple of links to help you educate yourself on this important topic:

russell tice interview with abby martin on breaking the set:

http://whowhatwhy.com/2014/01/16/transcript-another-nsa-whistleblower-russell-tice/

russell tice interview with james corbett:

http://www.corbettreport.com/?powerpress_pinw=7540-podcast

[Thinkingabout]

51. Do you think you are wiretapping when you look at your phone bill?

The definition of wiretapping

1wire·tap verb \ˈwī -ə r-ˌtap\

: to place a device on (someone's phone) in order to secretly listen to telephone calls

I don't mind being educated, I know quiet well what wiretapping is and how it is accomplished, you should educate yourself to understand what it is. Phone call records IS not wiretapping. If the information you have learned from Russell Tice has informed you it is then he needs some education.

[ljm2002]

54. Apparently we are talking past on another...

...have a nice day.

[Thinkingabout]

59. Maybe, the truth hurts sometimes.

[woo me with science]

63. More than *eighty percent* of phone calls, the audio content, not just metadata, is being stored.

You are the one ignoring what is posted to you and shamelessly continuing to pretend that phone call records are all that is being collected.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/11/the-ultimate-goal-of-the-nsa-is-total-population-control

At least 80% of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the US. The NSA lies about what it stores.”

What stunning examples throughout this thread of the level of honesty we have come to expect from the NSA defenders here on DU.

[Thinkingabout]

64. You know, if this is true then I can retrieve the voice information and use this to prove I said or

did not say something. This is good, no more he said she said, we can just listen to the calls. I wonder what I have to do in order to get this information. Never thought the gubermint was going to help me so much.

[woo me with science]

75. No, unless you are NSA, you can't retrieve it. That's part of the point.

The people's privacy is being systematically destroyed, while secrecy in government is being correspondingly increased through secret laws and secret courts.

They have been creating an infrastructure consistent with totalitarianism, and that's no overstatement.

NSA Rejecting Every FOIA Request Made by U.S. Citizens
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/06/1221694/-NSA-Rejecting-Every-FOIA-Request-Made-by-U-S-Citizens

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

DEA Manuals Show Feds Use NSA Spy Data, Train Cops to Hide NSA origins, Construct False Chains of Evidence
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024507611

[Thinkingabout]

78. I am thinking this is going to be normal in the future, we could subpoena the files when there is a

conflict. We will only need someone to go in and acquire the files. It would be good to have every word, word for word.

[woo me with science]

81. Third Way defense of outright corruption: Attempt to normalize

blatant abuses of power by our own government by yawning and declaring them normal and no big deal.

I call it "Third Way blase," and I suppose it's the only tactic you have left, when the abuses can't be denied anymore. I just posted three links documenting our own government's

(1) concealing its spying from Americans,

(2) defending outright LIES to Americans and the courts over mass surveillance, and

(3) Using LIES and fabricated chains of evidence to imprison Americans and prevent them from defending themselves.


"Third Way blase" is a lame, lame tactic that only drives home exactly how corrupt the Third Way machine has truly become, and the depths of the corruption they are willing to engage in and defend.

NSA Rejecting Every FOIA Request Made by U.S. Citizens
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/06/1221694/-NSA-Rejecting-Every-FOIA-Request-Made-by-U-S-Citizens

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

DEA Manuals Show Feds Use NSA Spy Data, Train Cops to Hide NSA origins, Construct False Chains of Evidence
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024507611

[Thinkingabout]

84. Now you know there is mass spying and surveillance. I am thinking if this guy is correct then

we should be able to get the calls he claims is recorded and solve lots of conflicts. Phone records are produced in courts along with cell locator information, why not the contents of the phone calls.

Also, there are lies on both sides of this issue.

[woo me with science]

86. There are no "both sides" to this issue.

We have one government proven to be engaged in blatant serial lying and grave, ongoing violations of the Constitution and abuses of power against its own citizens. You acknowledge mass spying and surveillance, and then you do your best to minimize it. Third Way blase. A tactic.

Third Way defense of this blatant corruption - these Third Way talking points that relentlessly attempt to normalize, minimize and excuse the ever-growing list of abuses of power by our government against its own citizens - show Americans how dangerous these infiltrators of our party really are, and the depths of corruption they are willing to defend.

NSA Rejecting Every FOIA Request Made by U.S. Citizens
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/06/1221694/-NSA-Rejecting-Every-FOIA-Request-Made-by-U-S-Citizens

Obama Admin Seeks Permission TO LIE In Response To FOI Requests - Even To The COURTS
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185303

DEA Manuals Show Feds Use NSA Spy Data, Train Cops to Hide NSA origins, Imprison Americans Using False Chains of Evidence
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024507611

[Thinkingabout]

87. Yes there is lying on both sides of this, and until I can hear the conversations word for word then

we have another liar.

[woo me with science]

65. Excellent posts here

that are being ignored in desperation, it seems.

Thank you for the important links.

[ljm2002]

74. Thanks...

...I think that poster is either not interested in real discussion, or not capable of it. But I figured others might be interested in what Tice had to say.

[woo me with science]

77. +1 The more it's all publicized, the better.

As evidenced in this thread, we still need to publicly destroy the NSA talking points that misrepresent what the government collects and that try to pretend we are dealing only with 1970's style pen registers and metadata.

People need to understand how grossly and pervasively our own government is violating our privacy, every single day.

[msanthrope]

47. You bring up an important point--"being secure in your papers" has evolved over two centuries of

jurisprudence.

What I find so frustrating on threads like these is lack of actual discussion of the law, with specific remedies of how to change the law to ensure privacy interests are paramount.

But take what you wrote---you speak of "wiretapping." That is a very different thing from third party business records.

As a disclaimer, I actually think the current law covering 3rd party business records is completely inadequate.

[woo me with science]

14. ...

[ljm2002]

22. "a world where criminals has (sic) open season on victims"...

...is that how you see the U.S. of 20 years ago? Because 20 years ago we did not have the odious Patriot Act and related laws that were passed after 9/11. We still believed in the Bill of Rights. And criminals were still being put behind bars.

In fact I'd wager that crime rates aren't that different then and now. You seem to have decided there are good guys and bad guys and it's easy to tell who the bad guys are and once you identify a bad guy, well, the cops can do whatever the hell they want to them, including violating their rights six ways from Sunday.

Do you not see the problem here? Do you not understand the basis of the "innocent until proven guilty" principle -- a BEDROCK PRINCIPLE of our system? Yes, there are tradeoffs. Yes, sometimes criminals go free under our system who would not go free under another system where innocence is not presumed. That is one of the CORE BENEFITS of living in our society, a written guarantee that we as citizens cannot be incarcerated or otherwise punished by The System unless and until The System has PROVEN our guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- and this goes along with procedural guarantees. We ALL benefit from these guarantees.

[Thinkingabout]

52. You may not entirely understand 50 years ago people was getting convicted by having the same

blood type as found at a crime scene? Now there is DNA. There was not the cell phone system we currently have. There was not the GPS system we currently have. I know what proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This same information can also prove innocence. What would be wrong with this? The Patriot Act can be a problem and other abuse has also occurred such as "warrantless" wiretapping. You should know this was changed in 2008.

[ljm2002]

55. Too funny...

...but I've been thinking about things lately, and I'm just not feelin' it.

TTFN

[Thinkingabout]

58. Yea, thought you would think this was funny, unless you happened to be the one convicted with just

having the same blood type, beyond a reasonable doubt, gotcha

[msanthrope]

16. Well--he's technically correct that any evidence is subject to being gathered, but he's forgotten an

essential point---HOW.

Now, I have a bone to pick with you---in the argument regarding third-party business records, it doesn't make much sense to quote the 4th amendment, since Smith v. Maryland has already covered that. It would be a more erudite choice, in my legal opinion, to quote that decision.

But, that is up to you. I generally find that when one quotes the amendments, one tends to give short-shrift to the 200-plus years of jurisprudence that informs us.

[woo me with science]

23. And here you are, with the very same tactic as always:

Trying to paint the indisputable lack of content of Response #1 (Anyone watching this performance, read the post again...Seriously.) with a veneer of Legal Seriousness and Authority so that people will continue to be distracted by it instead of moving on to a more serious discussion of the OP and the ever-growing list of crimes being committed against the American people by our own government.

I have already explained to you why and when your repeated attempts to play the "legal expertise" card here at DU lost credibility: It is not even that you engage gleefully and repeatedly in smear threads against those who oppose the surveillance state. More important is that you have clearly demonstrated that you don't even hesitate to imply deliberate *falsehoods* about the law in your spinning for the administration, as in this thread where you really, really tried hard to insinuate, without directly claiming it, that NOT extending the FISA court order for data collection would be illegal or unconstitutional: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025134715 . Now that was shamelessness and dishonesty well beyond the amateur leagues from someone who claims to be a lawyer.

Response #1 speaks for itself. To pretend that anything at all in that vague and simplistic appeal for total police power even remotely introduced the basis for a Serious Legal Discussion or called to mind the need to rub our chins and contemplate Smith vs. Maryland, in particular, is a chutzpah move to be sure.

*End of distraction.*

[msanthrope]

28. Woo, on this particular point you and are in agreement, yet you respond with invective.

This is not the only time in recent memory that you have done this---your treatment of bigtree in this thread was, frankly, horrid--

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025222795

You and I may have differing views on many things, but when we are in agreement on a particular issue, and you continue to respond in this manner, it is indicative of disruption of the sort that the TOS speaks of.

Now, if you are going to speak of the third-party business records exception to the 4th amendment, you ought to read Smith v. Maryland so that you might know what you are talking about.

[riderinthestorm]

29. Remember the admonition to watch a fictional teevee show as a rebuttal?

Now THAT was classic uhm, "legal advice"....

K&R. Important OP.

[msanthrope]

40. Omar's coming. Remember, the cheese stands alone.

[woo me with science]

46. I had forgotten about that one.

Good grief.

[msanthrope]

48. Woo, I am going to repeat to you the challenge I repeat to every poster who thinks I am not an

attorney....

I have previously claimed that I am a criminal defense attorney. I have also detailed my experiences as an Obama campaign attorney. Heck--I was even interviewed on the Steve Lesser show on Election Night since I was the Democratic monitor at the infamous Black Panther polling site in Philly. Those are pretty big claims.

If you think these claims are false, then why not report me to admin? I practice in a state that has an attorney lookup function, and I am happy to submit my bar number to admin. They have my star member information.

Here....you and I actually agree, and yet you could not lay down the cudgel. I don't think that's how Democrats are supposed to work.

[woo me with science]

50. I have stated my case very clearly already.

With documentation of my observations.

Not sure what more there is to say.

[msanthrope]

53. Woo, I appreciate you backing down from your claim that I am not an attorney. And in the

spirit of comity, why not have a discussion with me on this important issue?

After all, this is an issue we agree on, as I have noted in response after response.

You seem very eager to accuse me of all sorts of things, but back down from discussion.

[woo me with science]

56. You are misrepresenting our conversation in your headlines to elicit a response.

Last edited Wed Jul 16, 2014, 06:42 AM - Edit history (3)

I invite everyone to read my posts and edits. My comments were very clear, and both of your claims here - (1) that I claimed to know for certain whether you are an attorney or not, and (2) that I "backed down" from any claims in that regard...are shamelessly false. I did write a slightly longer version of the above post, but edited it because it boiled down to my saying what I am saying now: that I have made my argument, and I believe it is well supported and stands clearly on its own merits.

I don't blame you for wanting to distract from the observations I did make, in order to pretend that deciding whether you are an attorney or not was the focus of my posts.

I frankly have nothing else to say here to you here, except that your behavior right now in deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote in order to elicit a response from me (or perhaps to try to mislead casual readers about the contents of this conversation) is a very good further example of the tactics and behaviors from you that I have already described:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5242407

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5242664

[msanthrope]

57. So take a stand, woo? Do you think I am an attorney, or not? nt

[treestar]

36. The cases are there

Reality. Period. That's called the rule of law. We have that here. It would be far worse to just let you decide whatever you think are the rights we should have. Or anyone's interpretation of that.

There is such a thing as legal expertise. When you don't have it, denying it's there and trying to drum up emotion is useless.

[msanthrope]

38. I am reminded of those who quote the 2nd amendment in a similar fashion, and think that

ends all debate on gun control.

[msanthrope]

11. You are correct that any evidence is subject to being gathered, but the rub is HOW.

The third-party business exception rule is due for some Congressional action. This issue underscores just how important it is that we eventually retake the House, and begin having hearings on the applicability of Smith v. Maryland in a greatly-advanced technological age.

[sabrina 1]

33. So you are against law enforcement being required to abide by the law, iow, the US Constitution

Amend #4 which asks that they obtain a warrant, not a hard to do since they are rarely turned down IF they show probable cause for their request?

You are suggesting that we simply 'trust' the government and its agencies to never, ever falsely, for whatever reason, accuse any citizen of wrongdoing.

There are examples of this kind of governing. The Stasi in East Germany eg, the KGB in the old Soviet Union, just to name two recent examples. Can you explain the benefits of doing away with our centuries old Judicial System, and replacing it with something like the above mentioned systems?

[morningfog]

66. Change every use of "criminal" to "accused." Better yet,

change every use of "criminal" to "wrongfully accused."

[woo me with science]

82. Indeed.

[WillyT]

5. K & R !!!

[Eleanors38]

12. After crapping on the Fifth, they went for the Fourth.

[woo me with science]

15. Oh, we can line up all the amendments they are crapping on.

It's getting to be a long list.

[Eleanors38]

21. They are a busy-boweled lot.

[msanthrope]

18. No--this issue was settled in the 70s. 3rd party has been around for 40 years. And that's the

problem--there's been little action by Congress over the last 40 years to deal with privacy issues.

[woo me with science]

26. No, it wasn't "settled" in the 70's.

Again, you try to wrap an absurdly false, definitive claim in a mantle of presumed legal expertise.

You are still trying to pretend that this thread is solely about third party records and metadata rather than the broader pattern by this administration of sweeping up all kinds of data and trying to change the law so that warrants are not necessary to do it.

Hell, this administration went all the way to the Supreme Court to argue for the ability to put GPS trackers on *cars* without a warrant.

The attempt to divert this issue into a narrow argument about pen registers and Smith vs. Maryland is disingenuous and legally absurd, as has been discussed in many previous threads. The scope of even just the telecom metadata being collected now is vastly wider than that in the 70's, and the ongoing legal discussions over that across the United States put the lie to your claim that anything has been "settled." More importantly, what is being collected and stored by our government against us is sure as hell not limited to telecom metadata.

"It was settled in the 70's." If you are really an attorney working for someone, you must be awfully careful to keep your PR activities here very separate from that practice, because the blatant legal misrepresentation in some of your statements here would be very embarrassing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5242407

[msanthrope]

30. Woo, as I noted to you above, you and I are in agreement on this point, yet you are being rude. Why?

I mean really, why the rudeness to a poster who agrees with you?

If you want to have an actual discussion with me regarding this issue, I'm game for it, but frankly, I'm puzzled at the level of anger you are showing someone who agrees with you.

[sabrina 1]

34. Thank you Woo ... these misleading statements need to be corrected constantly here, sadly.

[woo me with science]

45. Dealing with incessant diversion, distortion, and disinformation campaigns

is becoming a part of everyday life in the United States, just like in totalitarian countries. Every single day is a new education in how corrupt and manipulative our government, politics, and political messaging in this country have become.

The *patterns* matter.

I just saw you found this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025241916

[treestar]

37. The Administration can argue any legal point it chooses to

You are demanding people roll over because you aren't in agreement. That's not the rule of law - it's the rule of you. Just because it does not sound right to you doesn't mean it hasn't been considered by the courts or that both sides can't argue.

[msanthrope]

39. Well, here, it's demanded they roll over even when they are in agreement!!! nt

[sabrina 1]

44. Here is it asked that they defend the US Constitution as they took an oath to do. Quaint

I know, that old document.

Silly old 4th Amendment, who needs it anyhow?

[sabrina 1]

41. So the Constitution is no longer the 'rule of law' in America? When did THAT happen?

The President can only argue in DEFENSE of the US Constitution since that is the ONLY REQUIREMENT made of elected officials in their oaths of office.

What doesn't right at all is when our elected officials argue AGAINST what they took an oath to DEFEND.

Unbelievable!!

[treestar]

60. Er, yes it is and the courts decide the issues under the constitution

FFS! Talk about twisted. The constitution is the law of the land, as interpreted by the courts, not your gut feeling. That is because judges are appointed and confirmed by elected officials. I'll take them with all faults any day over some individual who thinks they know it all.

[sabrina 1]

61. So show me when the 4th Amendment to the Constitution was abolished. Thanks in advance.

[Michigander_Life]

24. Why wouldn't this fall under business records?

[msanthrope]

31. It does. nt

[woo me with science]

27. Important OP. K&R

Last edited Tue Jul 15, 2014, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)

[Rex]

32. Hoover...he made it clear that all US citizens are possible enemies of the state.

Did a real mental fuck job early on and it stuck.

[sabrina 1]

42. He's getting plenty of help from all sides sadly, these days. Used to be just one side, but as we

can see, they know how to rally the troops against our Constitutional rights which appear to be a huge threat to them. But at least we've learned something over the past decade or so. And knowledge is power.

[Rex]

43. Yes the 8 years with the BFEE and the 8 years with Obama taught/teaching us some valuable lessons.

The greatest and saddest imo, is the covering for Wall Street and the Spy Nation/Drug War insanity some of us grew up in and still loath with a passion. Unlike the BFEE...at least we have seen huge strides for minority groups under Obama...all the while it seems TIA not only never left as a monster to be built...but did get built sabrina in the form of the DHS.

Knowledge is power...and the use of it against us is the most powerful any government could ever dream of. After 9/11 it was guilty until proven innocent. Plus all the high level blackmail going on between the CIA and Congress...which seems stuck on broke.

I'd say the past 3 decades are a real eye opener.

[Uncle Joe]

35. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, n2doc.

[WinkyDink]

49. If issuing warrants were a For-Profit business, we'd see warrants up the wazoo.

[JEB]

88. Don't give them any ideas. They'll want to privatize the judiciary.

[lonestarnot]

62. Your question isn't really a for real question is it?

[Calista241]

67. So, criminal rule #1:

Don't take your cell phone with you when you're committing crime.

I don't see what the big deal is.

[woo me with science]

68. Constitution, schmonstitution, am I right?.

If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide?

I weep for the level of civic ignorance that the NSA propaganda depends upon.

[Calista241]

70. That information will always be available to them

If the cops take their time and do their jobs properly.

Searching joe random's phone because they felt like it is definitely a no no. But if they look at cell tower information, and a certain phone happens to be around during the time of a crime, expect a few questions.

That's no different than checking traffic camera info, security system information, or anything else.

[woo me with science]

71. If the cops take their time and do their jobs properly,

they can get a warrant.

That's an alarmingly blithe dismissal of protections that are Constitutionally guaranteed to citizens of this country as a defense against government abuse of power. Perhaps you should read and pay more attention to the actual scope of the data being collected, and to history.

Our criminal government has used our own tax dollars to create the architecture of a totalitarian state. That is no exaggeration. More than 80 percent of the audio content of American telephone calls is being collected and stored. Virtually all internet activity is being collected and stored. Location information and associations are being collected and stored. Commercial and bank activity is being collected and stored. Virtually everything they can reach is being collected and stored, and our tax dollars are being used to construct vast repositories for this data which will then be available for use for any conceivable reason, including corporate abuse, or political abuse, or government abuse against inconvenient citizens, at any time in the future. And while the privacy of citizens is being systematically eliminated, secrecy in government is being correspondingly increased, and these outrages deliberately legalized with secret laws amd secret courts. Anyone who believes this level of surveillance on a mass scale will not be abused (and in fact it is *already* being abused) is dangerously naive and ignorant of civics and history and politics and human nature.

The NSA propaganda deliberately attempts to narrow these debates to this or that type of warrantless data collection, hoping that Americans will throw up their hands and say, "Aw, that's not so bad, if we can catch a criminal." Hence the absurd and disingenuous attempts you see throughout this thread to limit the discussion to "metadata" or the pen registers litigated back in the 1970's that bear absurdly little resemblance to the data being collected today.

Our government has created something truly monstrous. They have subverted our own national security apparatus and aimed it at the American people to create a massive surveillance state within our democratic nation. And they have poured our tax dollars into a sick propaganda machine that works incessantly to disinform citizens about our own rights and protections under the Constitution, and the grave importance of and reasons for those protections.

[Calista241]

72. Sorry, I thought saying "do their jobs properly"

Implied complying with the law and getting a warrant.

[woo me with science]

73. I think the whole point of this thread is that warrants are being resisted,

the administration is serially trying to fight the requirement, and even the warrant process that is retained has been perverted into something that doesn't resemble what is constitutionally required.

Warrants obtained through secretive rubber stamp courts, mass warrants, warrants without probable cause, warrants that don't comply with the constitutional requirement to specify the place to be searched and items to be seized, arbitrary exclusion of protection for papers or information based on geography, or omission of warrants altogether...

and especially the mass collection and storage of all this data BEFORE the warrant process even comes into play....These are all gross violations of our Constitution.

[librechik]

69. Because when you basically have to suck up most EVERY CALL & EMAIL to do what you want

that's a long wait for hundreds of billions of communications. Then they would have to admit they are doing them all and holding on to a vast majority. Including huge amounts of harmless personal stuff from Americans. Which some folks might not go numb and fall asleep over.

NSA stores 80% of Americans' phone conversations, claims NSA whistleblower Binney
http:///article/2453294/microsoft-subnet/nsa-stores-80-of-americans-phone-conversations-claims-nsa-whistleblower-binney.html

[gerogie2]

76. Warrants don't matter..

99% of judges will just rubber stamp them.

[woo me with science]

79. Yeah, better to just give up our rights. Constitution, schmonstitution.

Third Way blase.

[woo me with science]

80. kick

[woo me with science]

83. kick

[rwkj57]

85. Government support be the Leaders

Why not if that what the law said's you need a warrant. Then the government need to go by the Law to.