The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government’s warrantless wiretapping program.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Friday rejected the Justice Department’s request for an emergency stay in a case involving a defunct Islamic charity. Yet government lawyers signaled they would continue fighting to keep the information secret, setting up a new showdown between the courts and the White House over national security.
The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, claimed national security would be compromised if a lawsuit brought by the Oregon chapter of the charity, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, was allowed to proceed.
Now, civil libertarians hope the case will become the first chance for a court to rule on whether the warrantless wiretapping program was legal or not.
RTFA. I’m certain you have an opinion.
O’Mama took Bush’s side? Wow, next he’ll be saying prisoners held on foreign soil don’t enjoy rights under the Constitution…
I support warrantless wiretaps. I see no reason for “the truth” to accessible. The notion that crooks and thieves should gain sanctuary over telecommunication devices makes no sense to me.
Any rational person would treat everything as bugged to begin with. Why should stupid naive people get all the benefits?
#2. So you want the “government” to legally monitor your every phone call, email, ect., scan the content looking for random associations, and declare you an enemy combatant based on their mistakes.Have a nice stay at the new Gitmo.
#3–Steve the Fantacist==I stand four square against random associations being sufficient for imprisonment at a new gitmo.
What are you, a crazy person?
#2 bobbo:
Would you change your mind it were illegal to use encryption?
#5–brm==excellent question. I am for supporting the Constitution/BOR, Freedom, Responsibility, and competent Government.
I’m just thinking thru this for the first time, but seems to me that encryption should be allowed and courts should be able to compel decryption codes on the showing of reasonable cause.
That leads to should the government be allowed to require back door access? And to that I think the answer is also yes.
I think a free citizenry should have privacy in their HOME. How that translates to being able to talk to someone on the other side of the world thru instrumentalities built and maintained by the government but the government has to close its eyes to this information stream is beyond me.
I respect privacy, not anonymity. I would likewise and for more reasons require much more transparency and access to government information as well. No quid pro quo–just the same interests being recognized and supported.
Your thoughts?
Considering the make up of the Supreme Court, warrantless wiretapping just might get the green light.
#6 bobbo:
I agree with you that anonymity is not a Constitutional right. I’d go further and say that privacy in the home is also not a right.
I want to know who my neighbor is and what he’s up to. It’s my right to stand outside his property line and watch him – even record him. He can pull the blinds, but everything in plain view is not protected.
On decryption keys: if there’s a physical record of the keys, this is evidence, just like the key to a safe is evidence. If someone wrote down their key, they can be compelled to disclose the location of it. If they’ve only memorized the key, this might be considered testimony, and therefore protected under the 5th Amendment.
So I believe the government can use your decryption keys when investigating you, but I’m not sure it’s legal for them to force you to tell them what the key is.
Although I don’t believe privacy and anonymity are rights, I also believe that people have the right not to be forced to be public. If someone can manage to encrypt their data and keep their name a secret, that’s fine – but the burden is on them to do this. Anything they miss is fair game for public disclosure, and if the gov’t asks them what their name is, they must respond with it.
The only thing I disagree with you on is mandatory gov’t back doors. If the gov’t can break encryption, fine, that’s their right. And if I put some encrypted data out there, I have no right for them *not* to break it.
I think the rights here are subtle: I don’t have the right to privacy, but I can do whatever I can to try and get some; the gov’t doesn’t have the right to see my papers, unless they have a warrant – they also can’t force me to use weak encryption, even though it’s their right to try and break my encryption without a warrant. In other words, my using encryption doesn’t grant me the right against it being broken for no good reason.
But generally I agree with you. A proper society requires that we know who the other members are, and what they’re up to.
# 8 brm said, “I’d go further and say that privacy in the home is also not a right.”
Except you’d be ignoring this little bit of text:
“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.”
“I think a free citizenry should have privacy in their HOME. How that translates to being able to talk to someone on the other side of the world thru instrumentalities built and maintained by the government but the government has to close its eyes to this information stream is beyond me.”
telephone lines are not owned or maintained by the government. they are owned by the phone companies.
#9 Paddy:
When I say ‘right to privacy,’ I mean the right to keep your activities secret from other people – I’m not necessarily talking about the government breaking into your home.
An unreasonable search of your home would be something like: “we’re going to break down your door without a warrant.” This is clearly illegal.
A right to privacy is something like: “you can’t tell people that I engage in sodomy at home.” I don’t think people have a right to keep this information secret. That is, if someone else knows that this is the case, and they decide to tell the village, tough luck.
Good to see them put the heat on those criminals.
Anyone who supports warrentless wiretaps has no respect for those who gave their lives to get those rights.
# 12 brm said, “When I say ‘right to privacy,’ I mean the right to keep your activities secret from other people”
I know what you meant. You have a gross misunderstanding of the 4th.
#6 bobbo said, in part:
“I am for supporting the Constitution/BOR, Freedom, Responsibility, and competent Government.
“I’m just thinking thru this for the first time, but seems to me that encryption should be allowed and courts should be able to compel decryption codes on the showing of reasonable cause.
“That leads to should the government be allowed to require back door access? And to that I think the answer is also yes.
“I think a free citizenry should have privacy in their HOME.” […]
The problem with that is such a citizenry is no longer free. People who can’t keep their secrets secret are not free.
I believe the former government employee who appeared on TV and claimed they listen to EVERYBODY. That’s not freedom. Not even close.
#14 Paddy:
What does the 4th Amendment say about privacy among citizens? Regarding homes, it appears to say that I don’t have to let you in my house unless you have a warrant. It says nothing about people discussing, in public, what goes on in my home.
#14/16, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
Thus the need for a warrant for DNA.
houses,
Thus the need for a warrant to come in and search.
papers,
Thus the need for the warrant to specify what they are looking for.
and effects,
This is the iffy part. If you make a phone call, are you renting the phone line? Is it considered one of your effects? If you are leasing a car, it is considered an effect.
Does anyone know if you are renting a house, can the landlord be served with the warrant and let the police in and still be considered legal?
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.”
#17,
Here is something interesting:
http://tinyurl.com/2h7q58
It seems the legal of definition of “papers” includes oral contracts. So, technically, talking to someone in public is Constitutionally protected as “papers” if you can prove you were talking business.
In a way, this makes sense in that recording a conversation not taking place over electronic gear still requires a warrant.
My take: legal privacy is expected in public when talking to someone else.
Whether it is granted is another story.
Good discussion, sorry I missed it.
Its critical in this sensitive area to keep several issues clearly defined.
BRM==I think you go back and forth between what I called “anonymity” vs “privacy.” They are both about keeping information secret but I’m using anonymity as an unsupportable/should not be recognized personal interest vs privacy that should be protected by law and respected by government.
The second definition set is the difference between what is currently recognized as the LAW and the more arguable what the law “should be.” That also if often flipped on back and forth. I see no reason to argue what the law is — because it is what it is, for a variety of reasons but it still is. Being reminded of what the law is as Paddy did at #9 should be a constant touchstone.
I could go on only with the commission of further pedanticism.
Our dear editor posts on this subject fairly regularly. I look forward to picking the discussion up again in the future.
# 12 brm said, “A right to privacy is something like: “you can’t tell people that I engage in sodomy at home.” I don’t think people have a right to keep this information secret.”
So you think people have a right to break down your door to see what you are doing? Unless you tell someone they can only find out by doing something illegal…
#18, Loser,
It seems the legal of definition of “papers” includes oral contracts. So, technically, talking to someone in public is Constitutionally protected as “papers” if you can prove you were talking business.
As usual, the Leibertarians are making it up as they go along. What you linked to is an explanation of a “contract”. It says nothing about the contract being privileged information.
I can’t speak about other States, but Indiana and several others merely require that one party in a conversation agree to the recording of a electronic communication before it may be recorded. That means if your girlfriend records you talking coochee coochee to her and gives that to your wife that is fine. But, if your girlfriend records you talking to your money launderer or local hitman then that is an illegal recording.
In public, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no expected right to privacy. Anything you say may be recorded without your permission. That included photographic as well as audio. The narrow exception is private events done in public where the right to privacy or ownership of the product is stated. That includes most sporting events, movies, concerts, etc.
# 21 Mr. Fusion said, “I can’t speak about other States, but Indiana and several others merely require that one party in a conversation agree to the recording of a electronic communication before it may be recorded.”
CA requires all parties be informed beforehand.
#20, Cow-Patty, talking to brm in #12,
So you think people have a right to break down your door to see what you are doing? Unless you tell someone they can only find out by doing something illegal…
Stupidity really annoys the hell out of me when there is no excuse for it. This is just plain ignorant and is an excellent example of Cow-Patty’s trolling.
In #12, brm wrote,
An unreasonable search of your home would be something like: “we’re going to break down your door without a warrant.” This is clearly illegal.
And to think Cow-Patty loves to tell everyone how they are less than literate.
Paddy-O,
I know what you meant. You have a gross misunderstanding of the 4th.
You are so stupid. I KNOW why you have an orange dick. You’re always scratching your head while eating Cheetos.
brm #8 –
Of course you have a right to privacy dummy. Didn’t you ever read the Constitution? I can’t believe you never even read down as far as the 4th Amendment. Very sad you will give up your rights because you are too ignorant to protect them.
4th 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 seized.
#25–chuck==so apply that language to the issue at hand: warrantless wiretaps. I see nothing in the wording and its reasonable interpretations that would extent it to telephone calls made around the world. Its seems to me your “privacy” or the right to be left alone is NOT AFFECTED by monitoring of what you say PUBLICLY in communications sent outside of your own home. I enjoy “subtleties” but I see nothing subtle about the distinction between what is done privately in your own home with what is done publicly (or at least “with others”) outside of your own home.
#21, Poison Twin,
It seems the legal of definition of “papers” includes oral contracts. So, technically, talking to someone in public is Constitutionally protected as “papers” if you can prove you were talking business.
As usual, the Leibertarians are making it up as they go along. What you linked to is an explanation of a “contract”. It says nothing about the contract being privileged information.
Actually, “contracts” are considered “papers” in the legal sense. Look up the legal definition of “papers.”
Ergo, contracts are private, oral or written.
#27–LL==there are oral contracts (not worth the paper they are written on) and written contracts which can be on paper or other permanent media.
The germane issue here is that your provided link doesn’t say AT ALL what you say it does, whether the contract equals paper nonsense or the more inane uniquely your own made up unsupported BS that such contracts raise a privacy issue under the 4th Amendment.
Kinda puts the LIE in LIEBERTARIAN doesn’t it?
# 28 bobbo said, “#27–LL==there are oral contracts (not worth the paper they are written on) ”
Oh, like the verbal contracts that then trigger palimony payments in the millions of $ range?
Get an education.
I really hate this, but there has always been a Presidential ethic (if you could call it that) to protect previous presidents from lawsuits and such. Kind of like until recently a sitting president refused to criticize a former one. GWB of course blew that out of the water when he started blaming Clinton for everything and from that point on everybody is game.
I hope Obama realizes that we MUST expose the Bush administration, and people will not lose faith in the Office of the President because of revelations of past presidential abuses. He should let these things go on and Bush has to be brought to justice.
The GOP went after a presidential penis for the silliest reasons ever, but now we are denied going after a president for serious crimes?
# 30 Rick Cain said, “GWB of course blew that out of the water when he started blaming Clinton for everything and from that point on everybody is game.”
Really? I’ve never heard him complain about Clinton.
G.H.W.B DID attack Clinton shortly after the election. Maybe you were thinking about him?
Got some links there?