whatever happened to the right to be left alone

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/28/whatever-happened-to-right-to-be-left-alone/

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was written in order to keep the government from invading the right to be left alone--today known as the right to privacy. The Framers who wrote the Constitution, and Jefferson and his colleagues who insisted on the Fourth amendment among others, had suffered grievously at the hands of the British king and his soldiers.

When King George III and Parliament were looking for new ways to extract revenue from the colonists, they devised the Stamp Act. This legislation required that on every piece of paper in the homes of every colonist there must appear a stamp issued by and purchased from the British government. This applied to all books, letters, financial and legal documents, even to pamphlets to be distributed and posters to be nailed to trees.

Question: How did the king and the Parliament who were 3,000 miles away and across the sea, know if colonists had the stamps on the papers in their homes?

Answer: Parliament enacted the Writs of Assistance Act. This legislation permitted British soldiers to write their own search warrants in which they authorized themselves to enter the homes of the colonists ostensibly to look for the stamps.

The Stamps Act and its enforcement proved so unpopular here that Parliament eventually rescinded the law. But the die had been cast, and the seeds of revolution had been planted. And thus, when the Constitution was being drafted after we won the Revolutionary War, the Fourth Amendment required that only judges could issue search warrants; and they could only do so if the government presented evidence of a crime about the person, paper, or place to be searched, and the warrant needed to describe specifically what the government was authorized to seek and seize.

All this worked generally well to keep the government from engaging in fishing expeditions, until 1986 when Congress enacted the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. This law in fact did not protect privacy; rather, it permitted federal agents to invade it. It provides that digitally stored information that is less than 180 days old may only be sought via a search warrant, but data older than 180 days loses that protection. The loss of the protection is an unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy mandated by the Fourth Amendment, which Congress is powerless to avoid or assault.

On Thursday of this week, the U.S. Senate will be examining a set of proposals which could have profound implications for the future of privacy. One proposal will allow federal agents to seize all digital data--even mere computer keystrokes as they are being executed--without a search warrant, and the alternate proposal will protect all digital data from government seizure by requiring search warrants as a precondition for seizing any of it.

This should be a no-brainer. The purpose of the Constitution has been to restrain the government, so that it cannot do to us what the king and his soldiers did to our forbearers; and everyone in the Congress has taken a public oath to uphold the Constitution. Is the warrant requirement an obstacle to law enforcement? Of course it is, and it is a good one, one that is guaranteed by the Constitution, and one that respects the natural right to be left alone. Without the warrant requirement, we will soon become like the old East Germany, where crime was low because the police could break down any door, seize any document, and arrest any person on a whim. Who would want to live in such a society?
 
am i reading this correctly...that if the data is older than 180 days, the feds can obtain it without a warrant? even data on my personal hard drive?
 
not on your personal hard drive, only email that is kept on provider equipment, like google email and such.

that is still fucked up. i have my own domain and i'll be damned if the feds can read my mail from over six months ago just because the emails are six months old. that would violate confidentiality clauses and laws.

it really doesn't matter, dem or pub, who is in office, the feds will erode our rights. and what is sad, is that so many lemmings will only whine when the "other" party is in office.
 
that is still fucked up. i have my own domain and i'll be damned if the feds can read my mail from over six months ago just because the emails are six months old. that would violate confidentiality clauses and laws.
if your server is in your own home or office, then you would be correct. If your domain/website/email server is part of a hosting company site, then you would be wrong.

it really doesn't matter, dem or pub, who is in office, the feds will erode our rights. and what is sad, is that so many lemmings will only whine when the "other" party is in office.
careful, you'll come to be known as a radical anarchist like me if you continue blasting away the establishment and their idolators.
 
There has never been a right to be left alone. Just ask god he commanded his minions to aggravate us till we repent.
And if we don't to burn for all eternity.

Not what I would call being left alone.
 
Why did not the Tea Party caucus keep their pledge to do away with the Partiot Act and instead voted overwhelmingly to strengthen and re-up it?
 
the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to god, does it?

And nope that is the one about the state not respecting the establishemtn on ANY religion.

I just said being left alone has NEVER been a right in human history.
Someone always wanted your land, money, worship, etc.
 
Cite? Just google. It is a fact that the majority of the Tea Party Caucus voted to strengthen and re-up the Patriot act.

I do not recall Obama running for office on promising to do away with the partiot act.
Cite?
 
For Yurtie's failing memory:

Fourty four out of the 52 Republican members the official 'Tea Party Caucus' voted to renew expiring provisions of the Patriot Act on February 8th.

Seven out of the 26 Republican Congressmen who voted NO on the Patriot Act yeterday are listed on Michelle Bachmann's official 'Tea Party Caucus' list.


http://www.examiner.com/article/44-tea-party-caucus-members-voted-to-renew-patriot-act

Hmmm only 26 out of all the republican congressmen voted NO on renewing the patriot act....
 
1. you have not cited where they pledged - to do away with the Partiot Act....

2. is there a reason you're avoiding talking about obama and his pledge? is it because he is a dem?
 
Why did not the Tea Party caucus keep their pledge to do away with the Partiot Act and instead voted overwhelmingly to strengthen and re-up it?
because the TEA party was hijacked by establishment members like Palin and Beck who had no intention of doing away with the patriot act.
 
Back
Top