Comment by staunch
13 years ago
Obama has publicly acknowledged that phone records are being collected en masse.
In his own words: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
13 years ago
Obama has publicly acknowledged that phone records are being collected en masse.
In his own words: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
Collected but not "seized", and then not searched at all without a warrant? Those records?
On a side note it's fascinating how the government has taken the 'digital piracy' logic of "I didn't steal it, the guy I copied it from still has their copy!" and re-arranged that to apply to digital data on a person. I'm not sure whether to cringe or be impressed...
is there really a difference ? i mean if the cops copy your hardrive , what is it ? collecting or seizing ? just because they dont actually look into it is ok ? I agree about your your piracy point , you are spot on ,which show how twisted the government is. They are just legal hackers, that's what they are, but they'll sue you if you do the same.
Well I think the point is that when the 4th Amendment was written seizure actually did mean that they took your crap. You had your papers, then you didn't.
Even if they were going to copy your work that would be a "search" as some government agent would have to copy that paperwork.
Things are different now, so that's one of the things we as a society need to figure out is how much the 4th Amendment is different to match.
That's a different program, and the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality of collecting the "metadata" that it's gathering, without a warrant. It's far less controversial than the PRISM program, which is what is being discussed here.
> It's far less controversial than the PRISM program, which is what is being discussed here.
Is it, though? The widespread Verizon metadata gathering is what I'm most concerned with right now. It, too, was whistleblown by Snowden.
> the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality
I understand this program to be ruled unconstitutional by the Foreign International Surveillance Court, albeit with the findings suppressed by the justice department for "national security" reasons.
I thought this was the stuff Senators Wyden and Udall were briefed on and aghast about, but unable to explain to the American people.
Do you understand this differently?