[ale] [OT] Liberties

[David Tomaschik]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:59 AM, leam hall <leamhall at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sean,
>
> I agree with the idea, but not the technicalities. If you send something
> over public wire/wireless, it can be read by anyone without warrant.

But it's not public, it's quite private, owned by private corporations.

> If you
> put your social security card in the local paper then no one is prohibited
> from reading and storing it.
>
> On the other hand, if you take a picture on your cell phone and do not
> e-mail it, then it is protected as a personal effect. Once you send it,
> however, it is public record.

No.  E-mail should be afforded the same protection as snail mail.  In
your world, we should have laws that prevent any communications
containing PII from being sent unencrypted -- that is to say, all
password resets, doctor's appointments, order confirmations, etc,
would need to be encrypted.

> Leam
>
>
> On Wed, 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mind on a Mission
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
David Tomaschik
OpenPGP: 0x5DEA789B
http://systemoverlord.com
david at systemoverlord.com