[ale] [OT] Liberties

[Scott McBrien]

Sean,

While I believe your statements to be a legitimate extrapolation of the intention of the constitution in today's society, sadly it says "papers".  Email is not paper and thus the same statement can be interpreted as not applicable to electronic communications.  The counterpoint would be something like radio.  Surely someone doesn't have the expectation of privacy when talking to someone else on an unencrypted radio transmission.

The sad fact is that our laws and policies have done a horrendous job of keeping up with the digital age, which is not all that surprising when you look at who's responsible for updating our laws and policies.  How many congress people have a background in IT?  And executive branch cabinet folks?  Exactly.  They rely on 'experts' from the industry to tell them what needs to be changed.  So folks from AT&T, Comcast (oh hai Net Neutrality) or Microsoft and Oracle (Common Operating Platform) or Google and Yahoo and Facebook (who federate and mine vast amounts of data at all times).  Between those 'experts' pushing their own company's agenda, and the general technological incompetence, is it any wonder we're where we are?

-Scott

On Aug 21, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Sean Kilpatrick <kilpatms at gmail.com> wrote:

> I must disagree.
> Facebook: Yes. That clearly is a public venue.
> Email: NO! The government has no more right to read my email without a specific warrant than it does to read my snail mail.
> Let me quote the Fourth Amendment:
> "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 siezed."
> Your smart phone is the same as my briefcase. In the 21st century, electronic records are most assuredly "papers and effects." This paragraph of the U.S. Constitution requires that the government at any level must get a warrant before searching my electronic communications.
> How does the government get evidence on suspected criminals: Easy! Its agents get a warrant, which must be specific as to the kinds of things being searched for. The constitution could not be clearer: no warrant = no search nor seizure.
> For further commentary on this issue (continuous surveilence by the government on the entire population), please reread Huxley's "Brave New World."
> Sean
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 12:02:16 pm leam hall wrote:
> > While I agree that the rule of law should be upheld, if you send an
> > unencrypted e-mail or post on Facebook you have given every agency in
> > the world permission to delve into your every affair. If you think
> > "the internet" is the issue, you know little about your insurance
> > company or those rewards programs. Or Amazon. Or Google. PJ's feeling
> > of violation is either misleading or very naive.
> >
> > How do you expect terrorists or criminals to be brought to justice
> > absent evidence? It's easy to assume the stupid criminals will be
> > caught on videocam but the dangerous ones also need to be tracked. How
> > do you propose doing that? How do you get evidence on them?
> >
> > Which is worse, to let your public documents be read or have a rapist
> > or killer brought to justice?
> >
> > Leam
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20130821/1e7ca2e6/attachment-0001.html>