Obama says what???

[Partha]

I'm sorry you don't have a good explanation of why you go from 'OMG this is wrong!' to 'what law did he break?' back to 'OMG this is SO wrong!'.

I'm also sorry you can't show consistency in your criticism.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I'm sorry you don't have a good explanation of why you go from 'OMG this is wrong!' to 'what law did he break?' back to 'OMG this is SO wrong!'.

I'm also sorry you can't show consistency in your criticism.

Thats not an honest assement and you know it. After asking you what law he broke, I specificaaly stated that I though he broke the law. I said is was wrong. I've been consistent in my criticism of both adminstrations on this issue. You're just butt hurt about it for some reason.

[Partha]

Actually, let's go to the thread.

http://brellrants.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... nt#p472974

No, you didn't say anything after I managed to mention what parts of the Constitution he was shitting on. And your comment in vaulos's thread was before the thread I linked above. So you flip flopped twice and managed not to be real offended by warrantless wiretapping until the Democrat was in office four years after your first comment on the matter and three years after you cast doubt on the idea that Bush broke the law about it.

Like I said - at least Kulaf is consistent in his disdain for the Constitution. Your attitude about it just changes with the party in power.

[Kulaf]

There was evesdropping and sypying back in the days of the framers. If they wanted communcation between parties to be protected they could have spelled it out. What they wanted to make sure of was that your property was secure from government hands.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since a coversation occurs between two or more people......how can any one of them lay claim to it.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Actually, let's go to the thread.

http://brellrants.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... nt#p472974

No, you didn't say anything after I managed to mention what parts of the Constitution he was shitting on. And your comment in vaulos's thread was before the thread I linked above. So you flip flopped twice and managed not to be real offended by warrantless wiretapping until the Democrat was in office four years after your first comment on the matter and three years after you cast doubt on the idea that Bush broke the law about it.

Like I said - at least Kulaf is consistent in his disdain for the Constitution. Your attitude about it just changes with the party in power.

You're right, I didn't say anything after that in THAT particualr thread. However, in the thread I linked to, there's a pretty good discussion of warrantless wiretapping, and my position on it is abundantly clear.

But don't let facts get in the way of your hate.

[Ddrak]

There was evesdropping and sypying back in the days of the framers. If they wanted communcation between parties to be protected they could have spelled it out. What they wanted to make sure of was that your property was secure from government hands.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since a coversation occurs between two or more people......how can any one of them lay claim to it.

It's the inclusion of "papers" that is the key. Papers are generally part of a conversation or contract between multiple people and given that the amendment doesn't specifically state where the papers need to be for protection then it implicitly extends to any sealed message.

From Ex Parte Jackson:

a distinction is to be made between different kinds of mail matter,- between what is intended to be kept free from inspection, such as letters, and sealed packages subject to letter postage; and what is open to inspection, such as newspapers, magazines, pamphlet , and other printed matter, purposely left in a condition to be examined. Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail are as fully guarded from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight, as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their own domiciles. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be. Whilst in the mail, they can only be opened and examined under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household. No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution.

Flowing on from that is a string of USSC decision which generally affirm that the 4th amendment applies to direct communications between parties irrespective of the actual medium of transfer. It simply argues that if the post office is limited by the right to privacy then so is the telephone system under the exact same principle.

Dd

[Partha]

You're right, I didn't say anything after that in THAT particualr thread. However, in the thread I linked to, there's a pretty good discussion of warrantless wiretapping, and my position on it is abundantly clear.

Yes. You said one thing in 2006, another in 2007. Then you accuse me of being mean because I correctly showed you flipflopping then, and now again because now you're convinced that it's the WORST CRIME EVAR.

You fail. You lose. Don't know how to put it any easier for you. Go back to something you've been consistent and credible on, like wanting to destroy public education.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

NOW can we impeach the motherfucker? Last I heard, breaking Constitutional Amendments was a high crime, or at least a misdemeanor.

Just curious here, Partha. Would you like to impeach President Obama as well?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Check-fucking-mate.

[Kulaf]

There was evesdropping and sypying back in the days of the framers. If they wanted communcation between parties to be protected they could have spelled it out. What they wanted to make sure of was that your property was secure from government hands.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since a coversation occurs between two or more people......how can any one of them lay claim to it.

It's the inclusion of "papers" that is the key. Papers are generally part of a conversation or contract between multiple people and given that the amendment doesn't specifically state where the papers need to be for protection then it implicitly extends to any sealed message.

From Ex Parte Jackson:

a distinction is to be made between different kinds of mail matter,- between what is intended to be kept free from inspection, such as letters, and sealed packages subject to letter postage; and what is open to inspection, such as newspapers, magazines, pamphlet , and other printed matter, purposely left in a condition to be examined. Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail are as fully guarded from examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight, as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their own domiciles. The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be. Whilst in the mail, they can only be opened and examined under like warrant, issued upon similar oath or affirmation, particularly describing the thing to be seized, as is required when papers are subjected to search in one's own household. No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the fourth amendment of the Constitution.

Flowing on from that is a string of USSC decision which generally affirm that the 4th amendment applies to direct communications between parties irrespective of the actual medium of transfer. It simply argues that if the post office is limited by the right to privacy then so is the telephone system under the exact same principle.

Dd

Except that there is no seal. There is nothing to keep the conversation from prying......ears. As in my previous examples when phone calls were made by manual connection the Operators often listened in on coversations. And party lines were shared by many different households. I had already commented on the difference between a sealed letter and a phone coversation.

[Kulaf]

As a matter of fact, you are breaking the law if you intercept and decode satellite communications. DirecTv went after a bunch of people who were doing exactly that.

The only references to DirecTV and people decoding their signal is in reference to hackers. DirecTV took no legal action against them and instead just kept using their own system to mess with the hackers. Can you cite some case where DirecTV sued anyone for attempting to decode their signal or cite any law showing decoding of satalite signals is ilegal.

[Partha]

NOW can we impeach the motherfucker? Last I heard, breaking Constitutional Amendments was a high crime, or at least a misdemeanor.

Just curious here, Partha. Would you like to impeach President Obama as well?

There's a teeny tiny difference here. Just one. Maybe you'll understand it.

The courts have not ruled on it's legality. Yet. It's my hope they DO call it illegal.

In the case of warrantless wiretapping, there were already laws on the books preventing Bush from doing what he did and Supreme Court precedent about the law that Bush broke. If the Supreme Court says it's against the law and Obama's administration continues doing it, damn right impeach him. If Congress makes a law preventing it and Obama breaks it, damn right impeach him. But don't give me Embar's bullshit about how it's mildly annoying but not a crime when Bush breaks the law and Obama is ZOMG HIGH CRIMINAL FOREVAR for arguing over something that isn't settled law.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

But don't give me Embar's bullshit about how it's mildly annoying but not a crime when Bush breaks the law and Obama is ZOMG HIGH CRIMINAL FOREVAR for arguing over something that isn't settled law.

Where did I say that?

And I'll also admit to having very little understanding of the law in this area. I was just, you know, asking your view on it with the current administration. Thanks for the answer and clarification though. And all things considered, I support Obama a hell of a lot more than I did Bush (Not on this one though; I consider it a violation of citizens' privacy regardless of who's doing it). It just seems to me that if the SC declared it a violation of the Constitution when Bush did it, that same would hold true over to Obama. But like I said, I'm sure as hell no legal expert.

[Partha]

It just seems to me that if the SC declared it a violation of the Constitution when Bush did it, that same would hold true over to Obama. But like I said, I'm sure as hell no legal expert.

Unfortunately, what Obama's team is talking about is different from Bush. Bush was recording conversations of American citizens without a warrant. That's clearly illegal and unconstituional, and has been for 40 What Obama's group is doing is getting records from the phone companies of the locations where phone calls were made from. That's not settled law yet.

[Embar Angylwrath]

As a matter of fact, you are breaking the law if you intercept and decode satellite communications. DirecTv went after a bunch of people who were doing exactly that.

The only references to DirecTV and people decoding their signal is in reference to hackers. DirecTV took no legal action against them and instead just kept using their own system to mess with the hackers. Can you cite some case where DirecTV sued anyone for attempting to decode their signal or cite any law showing decoding of satalite signals is ilegal.

http://spacelawprobe.blogspot.com/2007/ ... mited.html

I personally know of three people who were sued for hacking the DirecTv signal.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9776790-38.html

So why is DirecTV hassling people who buy smart cards? Well, they managed to obtain the customer lists from vendors--including one named "White Viper"--and then apparently assumed that every customer must necessarily be a criminal. The company sent more than 170,000 demand letters (demanding a check for at least $3,500) and filed lawsuits against more than 25,000 people nationwide

Note... the appelate court ruled the defendents were guilty, and the code applied, but not the amount of hte fine. That's the only material part of the judgement they changed. The fine, not the verdict.

http://www.hackhu.com/

Some recent lawsuits filed.

[Ddrak]

Except that there is no seal. There is nothing to keep the conversation from prying......ears. As in my previous examples when phone calls were made by manual connection the Operators often listened in on coversations. And party lines were shared by many different households. I had already commented on the difference between a sealed letter and a phone coversation.

Operators are not the government, so the analogy is void.

There is no requirement for a "seal". Conversations are protected. This was determined by the USSC in Silverman v United States

Phone conversations specifically are protected. The USSC delivered its judgement in Katz v United States which determined that the government requires a warrant to listen in on your conversations.

From the view of the 4th amendment, there is no difference between a letter and a phone conversation. Both are protected from government intrusion.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I've read Katz and I agree with Justice Black in his dissent. I would suggest reading it if you haven't. What the court did in Katz was to legislate from the bench.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Regardless of your personal opinion in Katz, you've been incorrect on the standing law in the country on this issue.

The administration's argument has so many holes in it its laughable. Expectations of privacy in electronic communications have been legislated and litigated, and found to be valid, no matter what the transmission method. Trying to parse out that part of the transmission that "only" gives a location of the sender is just as wrong as trying to trace a phone call without a warrant. Same legal argument, same reasoning.

[Kulaf]

First of all there is no standing law on "this issue". Secondly with respect to tapping phones I am well aware of where I stand vs. current law and said so:

My reasoning makes perfect sense. It is just at odds with current law.

[Ddrak]

I've read Katz and I agree with Justice Black in his dissent. I would suggest reading it if you haven't. What the court did in Katz was to legislate from the bench.

Black makes a convincing argument, but I don't think the court was "legislating from the bench". They were validly interpreting the intent 4th amendment to include telephone conversations. People may disagree but that was the majority opinion and it is very definitely the function of the court to interpret the constitution. I think most complaints about "legislating from the bench" are really complaints about "interpreting law differently to what I think".

I tend to agree with the majority on this one, especially now "papers" are sent electronically all over the place and the differentiation between a conversation and a "paper" in electronic form is quite blurred. I think the decision was good and erring on the side of limiting government power to snoop is generally a better thing than permitting it.

Dd