'Fourth Amendment Caucus' Aims To Fight Government Surveillance (usatoday.com) 212
schwit1 quotes a report from USA Today: An unusual coalition of 13 Republicans and 12 Democrats on Wednesday announced the creation of the House Fourth Amendment Caucus to protect Americans' privacy rights against calls for increased government surveillance in the wake of terrorist attacks. The group named itself after the Fourth Amendment because the lawmakers fear that the government is increasingly seeking the power to search Americans' electronic data without a warrant. They see that as a threat to the Constitutional amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. "In the face of difficult circumstances, some are quick to pursue extreme, unconstitutional measures; the Fourth Amendment Caucus will be a moderating influence that gives voice to countless Americans whose rights are violated by these ill-conceived policies," said Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich), who joined the group led by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and Ted Poe (R-Texas).
Good luck with that (Score:2)
Worth a plugged nickle? Doubtful. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're pretty late to the party. The fourth amendment has obviously been a "it's just a piece of paper" issue to legislators and the legislation they create since the patriot act was squeezed out of the ass of congress. The rest of the bill of rights hasn't fared much better (3rd amendment excepted.) Lots of other unconstitutional legislation currently in play as well — eminent domain, commerce clause, ex post facto laws, etc. Perhaps I'm just too cynical because of where we are today, but it seems extremely unlikely to me that congress, with or without this... caucus... will get anything done that slows or stops the ongoing government extra-constitutional behaviors.
Glad to see it's bipartisan (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They are just trying to curry favor with their electorate because they know that a shake up is coming*. They want to stay where they are and so they need to make a lot of noise that sounds really good to distract from anything else going on. I see these people as the smart ones.
* No mater who the next POTUS is.
Re:Glad to see it's bipartisan (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think would Clinton "shake up?" She is the epitome of the status-quo!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Glad to see it's bipartisan (Score:4, Interesting)
There are several shake ups coming in November / January.
Let's look at the Senate. It's likely to swing Blue. This alone won't mean much because the House is likely to remain Red, but it's certainly going to change legislative agendas, which are important. Speaking of the House, with Trump at the top of the ticket, there will be downballot implications, some Republicans are going to have turnout trouble leading to Democrats taking some seats. I haven't seen any polls I believe in, but I think the House stays Red but with a bigger percentage Blue than before. That's a change that means more bipartisan cooperation will be necessary for anybody to get their personal agendas to see the light of day.
I can't see a Hillary executive changing much in terms of foreign policy, so full credit for "status-quo" there. Despite my preferences, she's likely to continue to antagonize Russia with anti-ICBM batteries and unified exercises close to Russia. She stands a chance of using executive orders to continue to shape the immigrant and minimum wage debates. And her ability to sign into law what the new Senate and the increasingly bipartisan House is important.
On the topic of Hillary being status-quo. Based on the rhetoric of the Republican Party for the last 2-3 years, a status-quo is in fact a shake up. All the stonewalling that's been done in Congress, all the scapegoating, all the blaming, and they can't get the American people to put them back into power. Heck, they need to tend to their own house as they realize 12 candidates can't make it through the primaries without a crazy making it out as the candidate. Then if you count that Hillary is almost certain to name at least one Supreme Court Justice in the next 4 years (with some guessing up to three!), this is going to be a "status-quo" that remains in place for a long time. Even if it's only Ginsberg and Breyer getting replaced with younger equivalents, that's a big deal. There's a 54% [slate.com] chance of a conservative justice kicking it in the next four years, so that's an even bigger deal.
Re: (Score:2)
It's likely to swing Blue.
Why? Because the people on the TV tell you so? Because machine politics works in 2016, just like it did 40 years ago? Is that why we have such predictable candidates like Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump?
Technically, the only Red seats that are in "jeopardy" are in "battleground" states. I am fully prepared to see Clinton win the PotUS election and expect media pundits to be mystified why there wasn't a bigger turnover in the House and Senate.
I can't see a Hillary executive changing much in terms of foreign policy,
The best thing to come out of this is to realize how utterly
Re: (Score:2)
You're making the hugely wild assumption that Trump cannot win.
As Brexit and other votes have shown, this is blatantly false. Even though logic dictates that Trump probably shouldn't be POTUS for many reasons, the electorate is composed of humans and not Vulcans, and emotions often overrule logic.
First, Trump's campaign is less about logical things, and just getting the soundbite in. He's probably more in tune with what people
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct about it being a huge assumption, especially since Rasmussen's latest poll of likely voters has him 7 points ahead, which is outside of the margin of error: http://www.rasmussenreports.co... [rasmussenreports.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No I'm not. The person I was replying to wrote that the status quo would be shaken "no mater[sic] who the next POTUS is." I disagreed with that assessment only regarding Clinton, implicitly agreeing that a Trump win would indeed result in a shake up.
Re: (Score:2)
Its smart to put oneself on the CIA "This congressman should not be re-elected" list?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Glad to see it's bipartisan (Score:4, Insightful)
If we don't have the 1st AND the 2nd, then the 4th isn't a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked by the government at any time.
The 4th WAS revoked by the government, and your "2nd" did exactly jack shit.
Face it, your guns are useless for protecting your civil rights. If it came to it, your little rifle means jack shit to a fighter plane and a tank. It might have mattered in the 1700s but you are SO outgunned and outclassed and outtrained that it is only a fancy way of suicide.
Stop pretending.
Re: Glad to see it's bipartisan (Score:5, Insightful)
If it came to it, your little rifle means jack shit to a fighter plane and a tank.
Read a lot about asymmetrical warfare, have you?! :) It's not about small arms nor heavy weaponry; it's about psychology and intel.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet the 4th was destroyed and all your "psychology and intel" did nothing.
Face it, the 2nd means nothing when it comes to securing your rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear this argument all the time. It's not very well thought out. The problem with the US military in this case is how likely are they to fight their neighbors? You'd get some, but most would probably refuse.
Oh, and how did the US fair against Vietnam?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their oath involves protecting America and the CotUS from all enemies, foreign and domestic. By definition, that implies being able to shoot upon other American (enemies). Its just a matter of how military members will define as "enemies".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
See, the civil war for a citation. There's a great book, 1861, that deals with the start of the civil war. Nobody in the north really wanted to fight a war, until the south started lashing out. It's hard to attack someone who is claiming they want to fig
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it came to it, your little rifle means jack shit to a fighter plane and a tank. It might have mattered in the 1700s but you are SO outgunned and outclassed and outtrained that it is only a fancy way of suicide.
Which is why the recent conflict in Iraq was a quick little affair. The Iraq war totally didn't get extended another decade after defeating the Iraqi military because of some insurgent types with small arms and improvised bombs....
Re: (Score:2)
Protecting your rights (Score:5, Informative)
If we don't have the 1st AND the 2nd, then the 4th isn't a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked by the government at any time.
All the amendments are necessary and to varying degrees they all protect us and each other. Without the 4th amendment it would be trivial to quell free speech. Same with the 5th. Etc. They all matter. Before the 13th amendment black people were not protected by the 1st amendment and the 2nd actually worked against them. Before the 15th amendment women didn't enjoy full rights of the 1st amendment. They all matter.
The notion that the 2nd amendment is what protects your constitutional rights is a tired and idiotic argument. First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US. There is nothing special about the US that requires civilians to own guns to protect their rights. Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights. Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one. Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights. If you want to see what the civil rights movement in the 1960s would have looked like with lots of guns and weapons, see the Israeli/Palestine conflict. See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights. Second, if the government decides they want to force you to do something, your little pee shooter isn't worth anything against a real army or police force. Individually it provides no meaningful protection. Collectively they are not needed - get enough people together to protest and you don't need to shoot anyone. If the society devolves into a civil war like Syria, none of the amendments will matter anymore anyway.
If you want to own a gun I'm right with you. I own firearms myself. But the only argument that makes any sense is that you own a gun because you like to own a gun. You don't need it to feed your family. You don't need it to protect your rights from the government. You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals. You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose. You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control. Nobody is going to take your gun away. Arguing against reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is indefensible.
Re:Protecting your rights (Score:5, Interesting)
"See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights. "
The way the police have been behaving as of late, guns seem to be the only things that tend to get their attention. Protests are cute and easily ignored or broken up.
Death, on the other hand, gets all sorts of attention rather quickly and shows folks you're quite serious.
( Doesn't always produce the results you want however )
There are a few methods that will remedy this problem:
1) Someone in the government tells them to cool it before it becomes a Class A Shit-Show
2) People quit playing by their rules and bring the fight back to them ( See Dallas ) becoming the " War " the police have always claimed to be fighting
3) Someone in Law Enforcement sees how crazy #2 will get and modifies the rules of Deadly Force across the board. ( Probably best choice )
Pro tip for the Police: We're on your side. However, we don't really care to have guns pointed at us for " our safety " over stupid bullshit. We don't really care to see you gunning down folks who were unarmed. We really dislike the fact that the laws are not equally applied to you as they are to us. Why is Law Enforcement allowed to intimidate and threaten people with pain or death for non-compliance with their demands ? Wtf is wrong with you people ? Since when was LE granted the ability to become Judge, Jury and Executioner ? ( Just say the magic words: " I feared for my safety " and you get to kill anyone you want )
You all tend to draw those firearms far too quickly and for trivial issues. As a result, the trust is starting to slip. Lack of trust ultimately turns into fear. Fear is what will start the aforementioned Shit Show. We are dangerously close to that already.
Your move.
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't have said it better. The problem is that this is likely to be a one-off response. If we started seeing a mass killing of police every time some unarmed citizen is offed by an officer, you would actually see some action. As it is right now, it's not enough of a problem for politicians to want to take on the police unions.
Why aren't police unions for gun control? (Score:2)
The problem is that this is likely to be a one-off response. If we started seeing a mass killing of police every time some unarmed citizen is offed by an officer, you would actually see some action. As it is right now, it's not enough of a problem for politicians to want to take on the police unions.
I utterly fail to comprehend why the police unions are not FOR strong gun control. They would benefit from it more directly than any other group in the country. Countries that don't allow guns enables cops to not have to carry guns [cracked.com]. It makes them safer in a real, tangible and measurable way and yet instead we are militarizing the police force and escalating the violence even against unarmed people. I get why it is politically difficult but I don't get why police aren't leading the charge for gun control
Re:Why aren't police unions for gun control? (Score:4, Interesting)
Police Unions do tend to favour gun control. Especially in cities/states that already have strong gun control laws. Note that Chicago has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country, and a rather higher than average murder & crime rate.
Do keep in mind that "enable" is NOT the same as "require": As in 'countries that don't allow guns REQUIRE cops to not hae to carry guns". Yeah, some places with no guns, cops don't carry. Other places with no guns, cops still get to use them. And much more safely, since noone will be shooting back. Do remember that the USSR (and Nazi Germany) had strong gun control laws, yet in neither place did they have "kinder, gentler" police (as a rather extreme example).
For that matter, seems to me Rwanda did the gun control thing just before they did the "massacre those other guys" thing....
Personally, I'm in favour of strict gun control laws. For the police. They don't need to carry a handgun, a shotgun & an assault rifle (latter two in the car, and a REAL assault rifle, not just the scary looking guns that the Left keeps trying to convince us are the same thing). When the cops disarm, I'll think about it. Probably won't get rid of my guns, but I'll at least think about it....
Re: (Score:3)
All the amendments are necessary and to varying degrees they all protect us and each other. Without the 4th amendment it would be trivial to quell free speech. Same with the 5th. Etc. They all matter. Before the 13th amendment black people were not protected by the 1st amendment and the 2nd actually worked against them. Before the 15th amendment women didn't enjoy full rights of the 1st amendment. They all matter.
The fact that black people were barred from owning firearms is one of the reasons the 13th amendment was passed.
The notion that the 2nd amendment is what protects your constitutional rights is a tired and idiotic argument. First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US.
Yeah, look at what a wonderful police state the rest of the world is turning into.
There is nothing special about the US that requires civilians to own guns to protect their rights. Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights. Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one. Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights. If you want to see what the civil rights movement in the 1960s would have looked like with lots of guns and weapons, see the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
Yet Martin Luther King Jr. almost always had people with guns around him for self-defense.
See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights.
There were several armed protesters in the group who didn't shoot anyone.
Second, if the government decides they want to force you to do something, your little pee shooter isn't worth anything against a real army or police force. Individually it provides no meaningful protection.
Collectively they are not needed - get enough people together to protest and you don't need to shoot anyone.
Yes, that worked well in Tienanmen Square.
If you want to own a gun I'm right with you. I own firearms myself. But the only argument that makes any sense is that you own a gun because you like to own a gun... You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals.
Except when you do [gunowners.org].
You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose. You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control. Nobody is going to take your gun away.
It sounds as if you would like to take semi-automatic or full automatic guns away from people. Several entertainers [etonline.com] recently have advocated for Australian Style gun control which was enforced by mass confiscation [nationalreview.com].
Arguing against reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is indefensible.
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, why are they on the streets?
Perspective (Score:2)
The fact that black people were barred from owning firearms is one of the reasons the 13th amendment was passed.
We didn't end slavery to make sure that black people could carry guns. We ended it because it was a reprehensible practice and we fought a real shooting civil war over it. NOBODY at the time was standing around saying "we need to make sure black people can own guns". If anything people back then were generally terrified of the concept of armed black people.
Yeah, look at what a wonderful police state the rest of the world is turning into.
If you think we actually live in a police state you have NO idea what a real police state is or what it is like to live in one. Come back and argue w
Re: (Score:3)
On a more serious note, some people do actually rely on guns to feed their family. Not many, but some. And the CDC [cnsnews.com] disagrees with you on the self defense statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Laws can be changed (Score:2)
I agree with you, but I also believe we can't just ignore the constitution
Never argued otherwise. But we can amend the Constitution and we can clarify what the second amendment means to be different from what it has meant in the past. All it would take is for the Supreme Court to make a ruling. Jim Crow laws used to be held as Constitutional - until they weren't. The Constitution once said that women couldn't vote, that slavery was legal and that alcohol was banned. Society has evolved since then and our gun laws should be no exception to that. How many people have to die n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've given this matter a lot of thought and I believe what we see is the result of people generally being unable to accurately and easily understand complex issues outside their field of expertise. When this occurs it seems to be human nature to defer to a trusted authority when forming ones opinions.
We see this in all sorts of issues like climate change (I see it equally on both sides of the debate) where the majority of people are arguing from "facts" that are given to them instead any real understanding
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite frustrating to see my country turn into an Orwellian nightmare. Most voters don't care, either because they don't understand the ramifications of a surveillance state, or because they fall into party lines and turn it into a petty squabble. So seeing a coalition that's equally composed of reds and blues is a very good sign I think. But we'll have to wait and see if this goes anywhere.
Let jump right to the Godwin, and look at how the Nazis came to power. You create boogie men for the common folks to distract them, and then they don't even realize when their own government is the one fucking them in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Barn door? (Score:2)
Seems a bit late, but OK sure. Just make sure not to "compromise" again after what has already been a huge compromise of our civil rights that has already allowed the wholesale search of business records without constitutionally valid warrants.
Re:Barn door? (Score:5, Insightful)
...allowed the wholesale search of business records without constitutionally valid warrants.
Remember, the failure isn't just the Legislative branch. It is also the Judicial branch, which doesn't smack these down and punish the offenders. And it's the executive branch, which seeks patently illegal powers. We have a complete breakdown in the checks and balances system, which is supposed to prevent these abuses.
Re:Barn door? (Score:5, Insightful)
...allowed the wholesale search of business records without constitutionally valid warrants.
Remember, the failure isn't just the Legislative branch. It is also the Judicial branch, which doesn't smack these down and punish the offenders. And it's the executive branch, which seeks patently illegal powers. We have a complete breakdown in the checks and balances system, which is supposed to prevent these abuses.
Ironically, this complete breakdown was caused by the threat of terrorism driving a "necessity" for an Orwellian solution. The end result is our Rights becoming a victim of domestic terrorism, and this concept of Freedom dissolving right out from underneath American citizens who are far too self-absorbed in social media to actually give a shit.
Re:Barn door? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ironically, this complete breakdown was caused by the threat of terrorism driving a "necessity" for an Orwellian solution.
This has been going on far longer than that. Terrorism is just the excuse de jure to further expand the assault on your rights. Before that (and actually concurrently) it's the war on drugs and child molesters. There's also currently the SJW war on the first amendment (with the liberal types who should be screaming loudest in protest jumping on the bandwagon and yelling "yee-haw!"). Before that it was the hippies and the black panthers. Before that it was the commies. Before that it was nazis. Before that it was the Great Depression.
Blaming the excuse de jure is just playing into the hands of those out to take your rights away (whatever their motives). As the GP noted, "compromise" has already happened... over and over. "Compromise" is a code word for "we'll be back later."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Barn door? (Score:5, Insightful)
...allowed the wholesale search of business records without constitutionally valid warrants.
Remember, the failure isn't just the Legislative branch. It is also the Judicial branch, which doesn't smack these down and punish the offenders. And it's the executive branch, which seeks patently illegal powers. We have a complete breakdown in the checks and balances system, which is supposed to prevent these abuses.
Since the first line of the "judicial branch" is a secret court that works without public oversight or even effective Congressional oversight, I think the real judicial branch gets a bit of a first pass on this. Our courts are set up in an adversarial way where you need to have two sides with clear standing to be able to seek judicial review. Even getting discovery requires some proof of standing. And then you run into state secrets being asserted.
Even with the Snowden disclosures by the time you get to court you have an old document that says you were spied upon in the past and which logically means that you are likely being spied on now, but some courts are saying that it doesn't matter because the order expired or there is a new law now and you can't prove you are being spied on now and whether you are or not it is classified. So I will give you the point that the courts are using esoteric legal theory to bury their (our) heads in the sand even though the clear pattern of abuse of the constitution is being established.
The level of willful disregard for the evidence that we have seen in some 4th amendment court cases would be like the courts saying well you have video of a gun being fired in the direction of the person and then the person falling down with a gunshot wound, but how can we really know that there was a bullet in the air since it isn't hanging in the air now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't think of a politician off the top of my head but I can think of a business. Qwest was the single major telecommunications provider that told the NSA to get lost when they demanded direct access to customer records. "By coincidence" a short time later most of their major government contracts were canceled and they found themselves under federal investigation for insider trading.
First on the list (Score:2)
The Constitution is not a suicide pact (Score:5, Interesting)
is often the justification used when reality and the law strike each other head-on. There are many interpretations of the phrase but these days it's used to say that the laws cannot encompass everything that people throw at it. Which, to my mind, is chickening out. It is allowing fear to reign and decide for us the actions we take to protect ourselves from the world.
I believe that it can be agreed that all of us want to live in a safe, civil society. So we write our laws with that in mind. Not everyone agrees as to what "safe" or "civil" means and those bounds are constantly being tested, much to our greater benefit. Thus we want to protect that civility and that safety as much as possible. The problem, this tension in our current world comes from the fact that we know, with intuition and through demonstration that there is only so much we can do. Some of us sigh and accept that there will be those accidents, incidents, and attacks which cannot ever be prevented. That the cost of having a civil and safe society is one in which others, regrettably, will come to harm through no action of their own.
And then there are those who don't. Whose drive to protect has been left unchecked and has become diseased. Somewhere, somehow, these people with the best of intentions has had their perspective mutated to the point where they only see how much control they do not possess. Maybe some of these people see the opportunity to get greater wealth or personal power. Maybe they were never taught how to let go of things in life. Who knows? I certainly don't. I'm in the first group.
All of this was say that it is not against outsiders that we must protect ourselves. It it not the asylum seeker, the immigrant, nor the H1B visa holder that brings a single iota of threat to civility or safety. It is not the fear monger, the hate spewer, nor the yellow journalist. These may be pitied and reviled but never feared.
What we must do is to check our fear. We cannot help but feel it. Nature gave it to us for survival reasons and it did our ancestors well to listen. These are not those days, however, and we cannot fall back to acting as our ancestors did.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, did you rip this from some professionally written speech or something? That is a most excellent post, worthy of a 6 if there ever was one!
while they're at it... (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe they can officially apologize to Snowden and get him returned to the US, ideally with a ticker tape parade in his honor. If he hadn't done what he did, the mass violations of the 4th amendment would still be flying under the radar. They're still happening, but at least we are more aware of them now.
Re: (Score:2)
How the hell is spying on an ally legitimate? The only way that could be morally justifiable IMO is if the ally is caught spying on you and refuses to stop when asked...which makes them something more like a "frenemy."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are Allies and then there are "allies." Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are "allies" of the US. Germany and Canada are Allies. Spying on an "ally" could be understandable, spying on an Ally is just wrong.
4th or die (Score:3)
The Supreme Court might help with some of it -- they ruled the government needs warrants to listen in on your phone calls, even though it passes through the hands of third parties because, among other things, The People have an expectation of privacy.
As more and more of your private "papers", in 4th Amendment terms, goes online and into "cloud", the idea that it is in 3rd party hands and you thus have no expectation of privacy, needs to die finally.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we go old-school with the "third party hands = no warrant" interpretation we run into trouble. You write a letter, seal it in an envelope, put a stamp on it, and put it in the mailbox. Does the government have a right to open all letters and examine them to make sure you're not a terrorist? The government currently doesn't read all mail, but terrorists could conceivably use the US Mail system to communicate so (by the logic of those who use fear to whittle down our rights and gain power for themsel
Re: (Score:2)
The US mail system already scans all packages and letters. It was several years ago this was revealed during the anthrax scares.
Scanning packages vs reading the contents (Score:2)
The US mail system already scans all packages and letters. It was several years ago this was revealed during the anthrax scares.
They don't scan them for information. They scan them to make sure there aren't explosives or chemical or biological weapons contained. Not the same thing. They are not as a routine mater opening your sealed letter or package to examine the contents.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they do. They scan and log the addresses.
Nobody is opening your mail (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they do. They scan and log the addresses.
Sigh... (facepalm) Let me repeat myself. They are not as a routine matter opening your sealed letter or package. What part of that didn't you understand?
Are you seriously complaining that they read the address on the outside of the box or envelope so that they can deliver your package? Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. Did you miss the "log" part of my statement? The USPS has no need to log addresses as part of the delivery process.
Logistics (Score:2)
Sigh. Did you miss the "log" part of my statement? The USPS has no need to log addresses as part of the delivery process.
Actually they do need to do that, at least for a portion of the delivery process. They need to be able to route and track the stuff they are delivering. You cannot do that without logging it somewhere along the way. They don't necessarily have to keep the logs except for purposes of providing proof of delivery where requested but there is no practical way to run a delivery system that size without some amount of data logging. If you think otherwise you don't adequately understand the logistics involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh... (facepalm)
To use your own silly analogy: Are you seriously unaware that the government now has the capability to look at the address on the outside of the package, then match it up with data concerning what you've bought recently that would fit in the package, where and when you mailed it, and the religion, sexual orientation and profession of the addressee?
You haven't yet grasped that this is a bit of a game-changer? Seriously?
Take off the tinfoil hat (Score:2)
To use your own silly analogy: Are you seriously unaware that the government now has the capability to look at the address on the outside of the package, then match it up with data concerning what you've bought recently that would fit in the package, where and when you mailed it, and the religion, sexual orientation and profession of the addressee?
I think your tinfoil hat is on a little too tight. Who do you think is actually doing this? Even if They (ooh, spooky) were somehow putting all this together in real time (which they aren't) does the phrase "needle in a haystack" mean anything to you?
Yeah the government overreaches sometimes (see the NSA) but that doesn't mean we need to get needlessly paranoid.
You haven't yet grasped that this is a bit of a game-changer? Seriously?
It's adorable that you think this is something new. They've always been able to do this when the need arose. It's just theoretically less labor
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes! The service that needs the address to deliver to scans it from the package! What is this world coming to!
Really, do you have to work at being this stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, isn't it actually a felony to tamper with other people's mail?
Or I suppose since they're the government that rule doesn't apply to them? Because ain't nobody got time to get a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court might help with some of it -- they ruled the government needs warrants to listen in on your phone calls, even though it passes through the hands of third parties because, among other things, The People have an expectation of privacy.
I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court to help with the 4th Amendment [thefreetho...roject.com]. They seem to get more wrong these days than they get right.
Simple solution (Score:3)
Make breaking the law a crime. Yeah, totally crazy, right? Except, that's how laws that don't apply to government employees work. We need to criminalize "breaking" the 4th amendment along with the rest of them. It'll only take one or two government criminals going to jail before the rest catch on.
Sadly, it really is that simple and congress could do that tomorrow.
Re: (Score:3)
Make breaking the law a crime. Yeah, totally crazy, right? Except, that's how laws that don't apply to government employees work. We need to criminalize "breaking" the 4th amendment along with the rest of them. It'll only take one or two government criminals going to jail before the rest catch on.
Sadly, it really is that simple and congress could do that tomorrow.
Good luck getting Congress to pass a law that puts themselves in jail.
The only way this will get fixed is by another revolution, followed by a rewrite of the Constitution, followed by a replacement of every government bureaucrat.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they just pawn the violation off on some fall guy down the chain and the ones who ordered the thing get off like Hillary.
And for those wondering who is in it (Score:5, Informative)
Not surprising my congressman John Kline is absent from this list but then he hasn't met a war or surveillance action he didn't like.
Thanks. Four from Texas (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing that out. It's interesting that of the 13 members, four are from Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for pointing that out. It's interesting that of the 13 members, four are from Texas.
There are 25 members of the coalition - 13 republican and 12 democrats. That still gives Texas just under 1/6th of the members of the group.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that Rand Paul isn't in the list. Kinda makes me wonder which side is the sham.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that Rand Paul isn't in the list. Kinda makes me wonder which side is the sham.
This is a House of Representatives caucus. Paul is a Senator.
America First! (Score:2)
When I'm president, we're going to have a terrific Fourth Amendment. I support all of the Amendments. The First Amendment, Third, the Twenty-First. And I support all of the Chapters of all of the Amendments.
Now excuse me while I go sue another newspaper for saying bad things about me.
Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
They can start be dismantling the USA PATRIOT Act. A bad idea, always was. Tell the security services they need to play by the same rules everyone else does.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
They can start be dismantling the USA PATRIOT Act. A bad idea, always was. Tell the security services they need to play by the same rules everyone else does.
Justin Amash recently prevented it from being expanded [thenewamerican.com], at least in the short term. This guy is as principled as they come in the House of Reps.
Liars lying about the lies they tell (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All politicians are liars, but why are you skeptical about this group?
Names (Score:2)
They were gonna go with " Justice League " but the name was already taken :D
Privacy has always been an illusion (Score:2)
It's really important to *NOT* Minify the BOR (Score:2)
Both sides go too far (Score:2)
Yeah, they claim otherwise, but the fact is, that the far right did the push for the PAT act, and continue to do so today. In addition, they are the ones that removed the hard core oversight of the NSA under W, that allowed them to run amok.
Then we have the far left. They want to deny EVERYTHING to the gov. However, they ignore the fact that their job is to protect America, and have mor
Re: (Score:3)
So constitution be damned right?
Re:Arab sponsored. (Score:5, Interesting)
"A Republic. If you can keep it."
-- B Franklin
It seems we're nearing the end of this little experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems we're nearing the end of this little experiment.
The "experiment" barely ran three years [encyclopedia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Arab sponsored. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Arab sponsored. (Score:5, Informative)
And, in case it matters, he's Eastern Orthodox. (As your post seemed to imply that he was Muslim and therefore pro-violence.)
Re:Arab sponsored. (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in SW Michigan, am a local union president, and vote mostly for Democrats - with the typical exception of Justin Amash. I have never voted against him.
Justin fought against SOPA, for privacy, and has published his rationale for every vote that he makes.
Because he stands for, and listens to his constituents, I would gladly vote for Justin Amash for President.
Re: (Score:3)
Justin fought against SOPA, for privacy, and has published his rationale for every vote that he makes.
Publishing his rationale for every vote is awesome. I looked on his web site, though, and it appears that he only publishes them on Facebook. That probably works well for many, but it makes it hard to search and isn't nearly as nice as if he'd just put the same information on his web site. Kudos to him for explaining his votes, though.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm hoping this was simply an laughably over-the-top statement to make a point, but just in case...
How about "you will never be truly safe period". No matter how many rights you forfeit to your would-be masters, they will never be able to protect you from every threat, every danger, every bump in the night, every offensive word, or even every perceived slight. You might have to take some responsibility for your own safety, recognize that the world can be a dangerous place, and that some people don't mind th
Re: (Score:2)
How many people have to die before you give up your outdated sense of privacy? When they wrote the fourth amendment, the framers did not foresee a future where we would be constantly under threat of non-state actors wishing to do us harm. From Muslim extremists to Lone Wolf right wing gunmen, we will never be truly safe. Full stop.
FTFY
We cannot abandon one natural right and expect to keep the others.
Wait, so you're saying we should jettison the entire Constitution? I'm confused. Are you being sarcastic?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go fuck yourself, you goddamn fascist coward!
Re: (Score:2)
"the framers did not foresee a future where we would be constantly under threat of non-state actors wishing to do us harm"
Exactly how much liberty has to be given up to stop all terrorism? (since you're playing stupid absolutist games). Can you stop threats from occurring if you give up every single liberty we have? The answer is no. If you worked with any of the departments protecting us from evil, you would know the best anyone can do is make their presence known and hope that it makes it easier for them
Re: (Score:2)
They hand that warrant out. It isn't generalized, it covers thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands per warrant. But you know to make us safer from those that would seek to harm us.