The Fourth Amendment, along with the other amendments to the Constitution that form our Bill of Rights, came into effect on December 15, 1791.
The Framers of our Constitution — and the voters in the states that passed the Bill of Rights — understood how tyranny worked, and they took a dim view of King George breaking into their homes, rummaging through their desks, opening their mail, and reading whatever the Fuck he wanted, whenever the fuck he wanted to, without going to a judge for a warrant, and without having to explain what he expected to find when the warrant was executed. The Framers had already had a bellyful of kings.
The Framers understood tyranny, even though they didn’t have computers in 1791. And if the Framers had computers, it’s plain as day they wouldn’t have wanted King George breaking into their hard disks, rummaging through their desktops, or reading their data—whether the data was email, documents on your hard disk, your telephone calls, your Google searches, or the sites that you surf.
Tyranny is tyranny, no matter the technology.
So it’s simple and crystal clear: The Fourth Amendment means that the government doesn’t get to read your data—to the Framers, “paper” without a warrant.
It’s simple. And anybody who tries to make it complicated is trying to fuck you.
Read the whole thing.
Anglachel
5 comments:
About 15 years ago I heard my first recording when I called customer service..."This call may be recorded or monitored to insure quality customer service". I about freaked out. And no one - NO ONE - complained or commented.
We have cameras Recording devices. And "persons of interest" - all not allowed under the Constitution.
A sad bunch of years for this once great country. And today, our "presumptive" Democratic nominee stays silent (crickets) with regard to FISA.
The House just passed the "FISA compromise", with the help of my "Democratic" Congressman, Mark Udall. I guess that's another "Democratic" candidate (Mark's running for Senate this year) whom I can stop donating to.
It's up to the Senate now.
Anglachel.
thanks for speaking out one of those fundamental constitutional rights which the bush administration, now with help from a democratic congress, keeps chipping away at.
this issue is also tied in with efforts by the bush administration to cover up and "legalize" it's illegal spying activities from 2001 thru 2005.
nobody understands these issues better than glenn greenwald.
for the benefit of readers and commenters here, permit me to cite from greenwald’s second post of the day (june 19) on telecom immunity:
[ …Perhaps the most repellent part of this bill (though that’s obviously a close competition) is 802(c) of the telecom amnesty section. That says that the Attorney General can declare that the documents he submits to the court in order to get these lawsuits dismissed are secret, and once he declares that, then: (a) the plaintiffs and their lawyers won’t ever see the documents and (b) the court is barred from referencing them in any way when it dismisses the lawsuit. All the court can do is issue an order saying that the lawsuits are dismissed, but it is barred from saying why they’re being dismissed or what the basis is for the dismissal.
So basically, one day in the near future, we’re all going to learn that one of our federal courts dismissed all of the lawsuits against the telecoms. But we’re never going to be able to know why the lawsuits were dismissed or what documents were given by the Government to force the court to dismiss the lawsuits. Not only won’t we, the public, know that, neither will the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Nobody will know except the Judge and the Government because it will all be shrouded in compelled secrecy, and the Judge will be barred by this law from describing or even referencing the grounds for dismissal in any way. Freedom is on the march…]
got that?
“… basically, one day in the near future, we’re all going to learn that one of our federal courts dismissed all of the lawsuits against the telecoms. But we’re never going to be able to know why the lawsuits were dismissed or what documents were given by the Government to force the court to dismiss the lawsuits.”
from glenn greenwald
I guess I'm a little slow but I really did not realize until this last primary cycle that we have NO ONE representing the interests of the American people in our leadership.
show me -
your's is the key question:
WHO IS REPRESENTING US?
WHO IS REPRESENTING YOU OR ME?
AGAINST GOVERNMENT POLICING OF ALL KINDS?
who works to keeps us from being tossed in the clink unjustly?
from being unjustly subjected to harassment by tsa personnel when we try to fly?
from having "national security letters" unjustly served on us by the fbi which forbid us from telling even our spouses that we have received such a "letter"?
who?
Post a Comment