Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States Businesses Democrats Government Republicans Security Software Politics Technology Your Rights Online

'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).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Fourth Amendment Caucus' Aims To Fight Government Surveillance

Comments Filter:
  • Sound and fury, like the TSA. (oh the irony)
    • by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @01:04PM (#52511417) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by LichtSpektren ( 4201985 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @08:05AM (#52509343)
    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.
    • 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.

      • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) * on Thursday July 14, 2016 @09:27AM (#52509811)

        ...they know that a shake up is coming*.

        * No mater[sic] who the next POTUS is.

        What do you think would Clinton "shake up?" She is the epitome of the status-quo!

        • I took the GP to mean that the population will be doing the shakeup not the president.
        • by chrysrobyn ( 106763 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @11:19AM (#52510645)

          What do you think would Clinton "shake up?" She is the epitome of the status-quo!

          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.

          • 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

        • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          What do you think would Clinton "shake up?" She is the epitome of the status-quo!

          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

          • 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]

          • You're making the hugely wild assumption that Trump cannot win.

            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.

      • Its smart to put oneself on the CIA "This congressman should not be re-elected" list?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2016 @08:55AM (#52509619)

          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.

          • by Type44Q ( 1233630 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @09:13AM (#52509707)

            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)

              by Anonymous Coward

              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)

            by Anonymous Coward

            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?

            • To be fair, Vietnam had tanks and a remarkably good Air Force.
          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Stop pretending the government will use tanks or fighters on US citizens. The day the Gov. does that civil war is here. And armored transports like the police use are not Tanks. Secondly should it ever get to that point, and assuming the very unlikely event of the military actually going along with walking all over the Constitution like that, there are 2.5 million total in the armed forces. There are 110 million+ gun owners. The military couldn't hope to win and wouldn't even try. As to outgunned, not
            • by pnutjam ( 523990 )
              If an organized military force springs into existence in the US, you better believe the Feds will be watching it. Once they resort to violence, all bets will be off and the military will be involved if it gets beyond the capabilities of the law enforcement.

              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
          • 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....

          • Ah yes, normal rifles were completely useless in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's why the US had no problems with the local populace and American soldiers haven't been there in years.
        • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @09:24AM (#52509773)

          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.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 14, 2016 @10:51AM (#52510441)

            "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.

            • 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.

              • 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

                • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @02:33PM (#52512195)

                  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].

                  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....

          • 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?

            • 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

          • #AllAmendmentsMatter

            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.
    • 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

      • by gfxguy ( 98788 )
        Actually, what I see is a lot lazy people who don't attempt to find out information for themselves when they could rather be clubbing, playing Pokemon Go, or watching reality TV.
    • 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.

  • 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)

      by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @08:18AM (#52509415)

      ...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)

        by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @08:39AM (#52509509)

        ...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)

          by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @09:40AM (#52509879) Journal

          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."

          • I agree that lots of excuses have been used to infringe on civil rights. What I think is different is that terrorism is a more effective excuse to make broader changes for a longer period of time than the other excuses. So that's what I think the OP meant by "complete breakdown" rather than a partial breakdown. I don't think, myself, that it really is a complete breakdown but I do think it's the worst yet, affecting the most people at a time when technology has increased the stakes.
      • Re:Barn door? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @08:50AM (#52509587)

        ...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.

  • First on the list should be to stop the 4th Amendment free zones
  • by H3lldr0p ( 40304 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @08:22AM (#52509433) Homepage

    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.

    • 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!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    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.

  • by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @08:31AM (#52509465) Journal

    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.

    • 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

      • by guruevi ( 827432 )

        The US mail system already scans all packages and letters. It was several years ago this was revealed during the anthrax scares.

        • 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.

          • 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.

            Yes, they do. They scan and log the addresses.

            • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @09:53AM (#52509985)

              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?

              • 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?

                Sigh. Did you miss the "log" part of my statement? The USPS has no need to log addresses as part of the delivery process.

                • 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.

              • 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?

                • 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

            • by mvdwege ( 243851 )

              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?

        • They do not open and read the contents. Scanning for chemical or biological contaminants is not the same as opening and looking over the contents. They don't even x-ray all packages as that could result in damage to some items sent via mail (film).
      • 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.

    • 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.

  • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @08:40AM (#52509513) Homepage

    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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

  • by Bob the Super Hamste ( 1152367 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @08:42AM (#52509537) Homepage
    For those wondering who is in the 4th Amendment caucus you can find the list at the bottom here [house.gov].

    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 for pointing that out. It's interesting that of the 13 members, four are from Texas.

      • 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.

    • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

      I'm surprised that Rand Paul isn't in the list. Kinda makes me wonder which side is the sham.

      • 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.

  • 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)

    by AntronArgaiv ( 4043705 ) on Thursday July 14, 2016 @09:20AM (#52509747)

    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.

  • A bunch of wishful thinkers or outright liars. I'll go with the later. Liars lying about the lies they tell.
  • They were gonna go with " Justice League " but the name was already taken :D

  • I may got modded to the depths of hell for speaking my mind on this, but privacy is only an idyllic fantasy that we might like to obtain, and we ultimately only have as much privacy as we have the lawful means to prevent those who might otherwise intrude upon it from doing so. We may at best respect another persons privacy under the expectation that they would reciprocate, but such an agreement is an informal and unspoken arrangement, and quite far removed from anything resembling an inalienable right. T
  • It is EXTREMELY important not to minimalize the Amendments. At some point, we began to make concessions in the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Amendments, weakening the entire document and eroding our rights. The 1st was attacked by politically correct morons, the 2nd was attacked by history-illiterate liberals, and the 4th was attacked by overbearing conservatives. Even if you disagree with the provisions, WE HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION via amendments. Until such things are passed, the Constitution and Bi
  • First, we have the far right that wants to give the feds TOTAL ACCESS TO EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE, all without a warrent.
    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

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Working...