• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Comey No absolute privacy. thwarts constitution

WCH said:
They probably sit around watching people have sex on their living room couch....in front of their smart TV.

Remember back when we use to get teased for thinking Big Brother was watching us? Paranoia's ass.
Click to expand...

Yup. Back in those days if you suggested such a thing everyone thought you were a crazy conspiracy theorist.
 
WCH said:
At this point, the Constitution is a mere distraction from the actual truth.
Click to expand...
which is the opposite of what should be occurring and it is time we started point it out.
 
RickJames3000 said:
I'd be curious to see how many of those complaining about government intrusions, in the form of surveillance, have ever (even once) felt the effects of such alleged government actions in their actual lives. I'd guess very, very few.

Probably the same number that have had their guns confiscated by the federal government.
Click to expand...

I am not the least bit concerned about my privacy being invaded. Then again, I don't engage in illegal activities either. If I was a drug dealer, I would likely be concerned...:)

In addition, I have no concerns about illegals taking my job, or Muslim terrorists blowing up my home. Irrational fears simply manifest into paranoia.
 
Vetplus40 said:
It relates exactly to your post. Sorry, that you missed it.

There are FEW absolutes. Think about it.............:)
Click to expand...

I love when an amendment says something is absolute and then the government comes along and says it's not.
 
ludin said:
see the 4th amendment. it would disagree with you.
what comey said was wrong as well there are certain conversations that are private and no court order can override it.
Click to expand...

We will just agree to disagree....:) I am fine with what he said.
 
ludin said:
This is exactly what the founding fathers tried to prevent.

Comey warns there is no longer 'absolute privacy' in US | Fox News

“Even our memories aren’t private," he said. "Any of us can be compelled to say what we saw. In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any of us to testify in court on those private communications. There is no place in America outside of judicial reach."

which is not true. there are certain communications that are private and cannot be compelled.

“All of us have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes, in our cars, and in our devices. But it also means with good reason, in court, government through law enforcement can invade our private spaces,” Comey said.

not according to the 4th amendment.

He said the FBI is renewing a focus on the challenges posed by encryption. He said there should be a balance between privacy and the FBI's ability to lawfully access information. He also said the FBI needs to recruit talented computer personnel who might otherwise go to work for Apple or Google

lol so why is the CIA working on programs that can hack and backdoor that information.
Click to expand...

Comey is mainly correct. There are certain communications that are beyond reach. A spouse can't be compelled to testify against another spouse. There could be a national security protection against
disclosure of a certain communication to a civil court, for example. But Comey's qualifier, "in appropriate circumstances" is a broad broad brush. The Fourth Amendment only protects privacy which can't
be invaded without "good reason" sufficient to justify a warrant, which is Comey's point.
 
Vetplus40 said:
I am not the least bit concerned about my privacy being invaded. Then again, I don't engage in illegal activities either. If I was a drug dealer, I would likely be concerned...:)

In addition, I have no concerns about illegals taking my job, or Muslim terrorists blowing up my home. Irrational fears simply manifest into paranoia.
Click to expand...

Good thing the government has a whole bunch of laws on the books you're likely violating right now. Oh wait...
 
countryboy said:
Which of course, is the excuse leftist morons use to usurp every other part of the Constitution. :roll:
Click to expand...

Typical Conservative hypocritical view. The "Right" is as much a problem in this country as is the "Left".
You guys (Conservatives) do realize that none of you are "God", right?
 
JackA said:
Comey is mainly correct. There are certain communications that are beyond reach. A spouse can't be compelled to testify against another spouse. There could be a national security protection against
disclosure of a certain communication to a civil court, for example. But Comey's qualifier, "in appropriate circumstances" is a broad broad brush. The Fourth Amendment only protects privacy which can't
be invaded without "good reason" sufficient to justify a warrant, which is Comey's point.
Click to expand...

that is not what he said nor is it what he implied.
 
Ikari said:
Red Herrings aside, the 4th, particularly through some of the data grabbing and monitoring performed today, has been under constant assault. The government does not have a free hand.
Click to expand...

Comey wasn't implying that they have a free hand. Again, he is saying that there are no guarantees or absolutes.
 
Vetplus40 said:
Comey wasn't implying that they have a free hand. Again, he is saying that there are no guarantees or absolutes.
Click to expand...

In relation to the FBI's unfettered, unchecked, unrestricted programs designed to subvert privacy. Just because there is no absolute does not mean that the government absolutely gets to do as it wants. His statement wasn't just "there is no absolute", it was to excuse the overreach of power by government agencies against the free exercise of rights.

There may not be any absolutes, but he can still go ahead and get that court order if he wants to spy on someone.
 
ludin said:
which is the opposite of what should be occurring and it is time we started point it out.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Unfortunately the ones who could change anything have deaf-ears and those perpetrating these atrocities are too embedded to challenge in most cases.

Trump isn't the first POTUS to openly address these issues.
 
ludin said:
This is exactly what the founding fathers tried to prevent.... etc
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. However, if you are given immunity, you CAN be compelled by the court to provide information that would otherwise incriminate you.

In addition, anything you record in any fashion can be accessed via a warrant; any communication can be captured, and so on.

The Constitution also does not explicitly articulate a right to privacy. It is implied. You might want to keep that in mind if you're tempted to proclaim an originalist position.

As he said, we need to balance out our right to privacy, with the interests of the state to protect citizens. This includes keeping privacy rights and the powers of law enforcement in mind.


so why is the CIA working on programs that can hack and backdoor that information.
Click to expand...
Erm... In case you missed it, the CIA is responsible for foreign intelligence, and by law are strictly limited in domestic affairs. This was due to abuses in the 1960s and 70s (e.g. COINTELPRO). Domestic security in terms of federal enforcement is the FBI's responsibility.
 
ludin said:
This is exactly what the founding fathers tried to prevent.

Comey warns there is no longer 'absolute privacy' in US | Fox News

“Even our memories aren’t private," he said. "Any of us can be compelled to say what we saw. In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any of us to testify in court on those private communications. There is no place in America outside of judicial reach."

which is not true. there are certain communications that are private and cannot be compelled.

“All of us have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our homes, in our cars, and in our devices. But it also means with good reason, in court, government through law enforcement can invade our private spaces,” Comey said.

not according to the 4th amendment.

He said the FBI is renewing a focus on the challenges posed by encryption. He said there should be a balance between privacy and the FBI's ability to lawfully access information. He also said the FBI needs to recruit talented computer personnel who might otherwise go to work for Apple or Google

lol so why is the CIA working on programs that can hack and backdoor that information.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of what the 4th amendment says? (That's a rhetorical question, obviously the answer isn't what you think it is)

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.​

It's pretty clear that the founding fathers wanted the government to be able to invade your privacy, they just have to be able to justify it to a third party. This is no different from what Comey said. You don't have unlimited privacy.
 
Visbek said:
Incorrect.
You cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. However, if you are given immunity, you CAN be compelled by the court to provide information that would otherwise incriminate you.
Click to expand...

you don't have to accept immunity.

In addition, anything you record in any fashion can be accessed via a warrant; any communication can be captured, and so on.
Click to expand...

in which the court has to have sufficient probably cause.

The Constitution also does not explicitly articulate a right to privacy. It is implied. You might want to keep that in mind if you're tempted to proclaim an originalist position.
Click to expand...

Please see the 4th amendment you would be wrong.

the Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.[20]'. The logical extension of this amendment to digital properties would make sense given that were the internet to have existed when the bill of rights was written, digital documents would have been considered more important than 'papers' as mentioned in the literal text.

As he said, we need to balance out our right to privacy, with the interests of the state to protect citizens. This includes keeping privacy rights and the powers of law enforcement in mind.
Click to expand...

no we don't. it is the job of the government to prove they have a need or sufficient evidence to invade the privacy of people. it is not up to us to balance anything.

Erm... In case you missed it, the CIA is responsible for foreign intelligence, and by law are strictly limited in domestic affairs. This was due to abuses in the 1960s and 70s (e.g. COINTELPRO). Domestic security in terms of federal enforcement is the FBI's responsibility.
Click to expand...

I guess you missed all the cia hacking stuff they just released. you should probably catch up on that.
 
Mithros said:
Are you aware of what the 4th amendment says? (That's a rhetorical question, obviously the answer isn't what you think it is)

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.​

It's pretty clear that the founding fathers wanted the government to be able to invade your privacy, they just have to be able to justify it to a third party. This is no different from what Comey said. You don't have unlimited privacy.
Click to expand...

it is pretty clear they didn't without actual evidence. so yes it doesn't seem you understand it either.
meaning the government has to prove a case before they can go after a warrant.

until then I do have privacy and the government is not allowed to breech that privacy.
 
WCH said:
They probably sit around watching people have sex on their living room couch....in front of their smart TV.

Remember back when we use to get teased for thinking Big Brother was watching us? Paranoia's ass.
Click to expand...

It always goes like that. They dismiss you as a paranoid conspiracy theorist until you have proof, then its "Well we knew all along, why are you acting surprised?"
 
JackA said:
It is what he said. You have no way of knowing what he implied.
Click to expand...

sure you do. he specifically mentioned a balance.
there is no balance to be struck. the government has no business in your privacy unless it can prove it has
evidence of wrong doing.

domestic spying, the cia hacks all unconstitutional programs that violate the rights of people.
 
Henrin said:
Good thing the government has a whole bunch of laws on the books you're likely violating right now. Oh wait...
Click to expand...

There is a law on the books where I live that says that I cant take my horse into town without having blinders on the horse. I am not overly concerned about that one either.
 
JackA said:
Comey is mainly correct. There are certain communications that are beyond reach. A spouse can't be compelled to testify against another spouse. There could be a national security protection against
disclosure of a certain communication to a civil court, for example. But Comey's qualifier, "in appropriate circumstances" is a broad broad brush. The Fourth Amendment only protects privacy which can't
be invaded without "good reason" sufficient to justify a warrant, which is Comey's point.
Click to expand...

Exactly..........:) The conspiracy theorists read into his comments what they wanted it to day and not what it really said.
 
ludin said:
it is pretty clear they didn't without actual evidence. so yes it doesn't seem you understand it either.
meaning the government has to prove a case before they can go after a warrant.

until then I do have privacy and the government is not allowed to breech that privacy.
Click to expand...

Uhhh... how exactly is that "pretty clear"? Do actually read what is written or just disagree with things out of habit? I literally posted the actual text of the 4th amendment which states that the government has to prove a case. I said that the government has to a case. Comey said that the government has to prove its' case.


The only person saying that the government can invade your privacy without reasonable cause is you.... And then you go on to argue that it really should be like everyone says it actually is. So... do you have an actual point here? Is there something that the government is allegedly doing that you think is unconstitutional?

Otherwise all you seem to be capable of is ignoring posts and insulting people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom