Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

jamesrage · Apr 17, 2010

Jucon said:
You completely missed my point. My post was intended to show you how labeling a group doesn't make you right. I wasn't expressing my own personal beliefs

I was simply using an example from a hypothetical misguided anti-gun side's perspective, as your post was an example of a misguided conservative side's perspective..

You point did not work because I as most pro-2nd amendment advocates know that unconstitutional laws against the 2nd amendment do not work and therefore do not see a point in them.

And my point is proven because pro-gun owners would not love to see gang members, drug dealers and unstable people to own guns... at least I assume they wouldn't love to see that, as the types I listed should be the last people to own guns... being they are criminals or criminal types.

You point is not proven. Most pro-2nd amendment advocates know that anti-2nd amendment laws do not stop criminals as they are allegedly intended for,they stop law abiding citizens.

My point is also proven by this poll, where no one has voted "yes", even though you assume anti-gun people would vote "yes". Well, I'm not anti-gun, but anti-civilians-owning-automatic-weapons... and I voted "no".

Then you are anti-2nd amendment unless of course you are trying to argue that you can advocate hate speech laws and government controlling what you can and can't say and what religion you can be a part of and still be pro-1st amendment. Surely if you support a blatant infringement of one right then the 4th and other other rights are open up to infringements as well.

Jucon · Apr 17, 2010

jamesrage said:
You point did not work because I as most pro-2nd amendment advocates know that unconstitutional laws against the 2nd amendment do not work and therefore do not see a point in them.

You point is not proven. Most pro-2nd amendment advocates know that anti-2nd amendment laws do not stop criminals as they are allegedly intended for,they stop law abiding citizens.

Then you are anti-2nd amendment unless of course you are trying to argue that you can advocate hate speech laws and government controlling what you can and can't say and what religion you can be a part of and still be pro-1st amendment. Surely if you support a blatant infringement of one right then the 4th and other other rights are open up to infringements as well.

Just like any law, they can easily be broken by those who don't abide by them. Using your argument, there shouldn't be any laws against counterfitting money simply because some get away with it? Or try using the same argument with people who steel other people's identities. Or maybe we shouldn't have safety laws in the work place simply because some ignore those rules because they are too expensive? I don't think so...

The way I look at it, people SHOULD be allowed guns because they deserve the right to protect themselves and their property, and should be able to form a militia if they believe the government is becoming too tyrannical. HOWEVER, I am 100% against people overthrowing the government when they have misguided notions about the government and those who support the government (i.e. people who think that limiting people's gun owning rights also translates to wanting to limit people's free speech and all the other rights). Sure there are some who want to limit people's free speech, but they are an insignificant minority. The majority believes that, hate speech or not, misguided beliefs or not, EVERYONE deserves the right to say and think what they want. And I am one of these people. You deserve the right to go around believing that liberals only want to take away all your rights... I am simply trying to show you that you're believing a falsehood. If liberals wanted to take away people's rights to free speech, they would also be advocating to have their own rights to free speech to be taken away (i.e. their right to spew hate speech about conservatives... or their right to hate Bush / Cheney).

The major difference between gun owning rights and the other rights is that with guns, people can kill other people... more easily than with knives or other melee weapons. By allowing everyone to own machine guns, you unintentionally are enabling violent people to own those same guns... and then EVERYONE will NEED to buy guns for protection out of fear. Even then, we will not be safe from these violent people. Sure these violent people are a tiny minority of the population, but it doesn't take much to put this country into fear mode. Forgive me for enjoying not having to worry about mass murders like we are seeing in Mexico. The weapon of choice to cause fear and mayhem would be the machine gun.

repeter · Apr 17, 2010

Zyphlin said:
Care to point me out the specific provision giving authorization for wanton warrantless email monitoring in the PATRIOT Act?

Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act greatly expanded the ability of the FBI to use NSL's, or National Security Letters.

One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.[132] This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order because of the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[133] Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[134] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act]USA PATRIOT Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Under Title 4: Border Security, last paragraph.

Zyphlin · Apr 17, 2010

Hmm, from the looks of it:

The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[133] Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[134] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.

Why look...

It appears the Patriot does not allow for that. It did however to suggest, as you did earlier, that it somehow DOES allow for it is misleading and a dishonest.

This would be like suggesting, concerning a story about someone not being afforded habeus corpus rights, saying "Can anyone say Abe Lincoln. Or when having a discussion about imprisoning a story about american citizens being prepared to be rounded up going "Can anyone say Executive Order 9066".

Replying to a current story using alarmist language about something in the past doesn't really do anything. The PATRIOT does not do as you were implying in your original post, not any longer and even previously in arguably a far from as wanton way as was being implied in this thread.

So, I'll ask again, got a specific section of the USA Patriot Act that's currently on the books that backs up your assertion that the NSA Is already doing this by order and power of the Patriot Act?

repeter · Apr 17, 2010

Zyphlin said:
Hmm, from the looks of it:

Why look...

It appears the Patriot does not allow for that. It did however to suggest, as you did earlier, that it somehow DOES allow for it is misleading and a dishonest.

This would be like suggesting, concerning a story about someone not being afforded habeus corpus rights, saying "Can anyone say Abe Lincoln. Or when having a discussion about imprisoning a story about american citizens being prepared to be rounded up going "Can anyone say Executive Order 9066".

Replying to a current story using alarmist language about something in the past doesn't really do anything. The PATRIOT does not do as you were implying in your original post, not any longer and even previously in arguably a far from as wanton way as was being implied in this thread.

So, I'll ask again, got a specific section of the USA Patriot Act that's currently on the books that backs up your assertion that the NSA Is already doing this by order and power of the Patriot Act?

I really don't know what you're talking about...in the last sentence of what you quoted, it said the following:

However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.

Now, whether the NSA, FBI, etc. have continued to use NSL's, I don't know, but I would think they would, simply because of the simplicity of using them. They're just efficient.

And please don't think I'm against using the NSL's, they just cut the crap, and let our intelligence agencies do what they should be doing anyway. I personally don't care if the NSA looks through my emails, or hacks my facebook, or whatever, I have nothing to hide.

Anarcho-fascist · Apr 18, 2010

I don't support warrantless government snooping, but one thing to keep in mind is that standard email has no encryption on it. It is sent as plain text, and anyone who was on the path to the message's destination could read it.

Zyphlin · Apr 18, 2010

repeter said:
I really don't know what you're talking about...in the last sentence of what you quoted, it said the following:

Right, the Patriot Act was reauthorized with portions of it changed. Later, those portions, the changes and all, were struck down as unconstitutional. Meaning the ability to do this as it is described in what you quoted, from my understanding, is no longer there. According to what you posted, it seems that if they had continued to use them they were doing so unconstitutionally and illegally. Unless I'm reading the portion about it being struck down wrong.

And please don't think I'm against using the NSL's, they just cut the crap, and let our intelligence agencies do what they should be doing anyway. I personally don't care if the NSA looks through my emails, or hacks my facebook, or whatever, I have nothing to hide.

NP, and I understand your sentiment. I'm of the mind that immediately following an attack many of the things they did were not over the line but as time goes on our system does as its meant to and slowly but surely starts stripping away the more restrictive and questionable of security measures as the balance shifts back to freedom.

Just one of my pet peeves that a lot of times people seem to think the Patriot did, or currently does, far more than it does.

repeter · Apr 18, 2010

Zyphlin said:
Right, the Patriot Act was reauthorized with portions of it changed. Later, those portions, the changes and all, were struck down as unconstitutional. Meaning the ability to do this as it is described in what you quoted, from my understanding, is no longer there. According to what you posted, it seems that if they had continued to use them they were doing so unconstitutionally and illegally. Unless I'm reading the portion about it being struck down wrong.

Oh, okay I see what you mean. Then I'd have to agree with you, the NSL's are probably not used anymore, so the NSA, and FBI are no longer using them.

Hopefully there are NSL's without gag orders, which would really amount to by-passing judicial review, but still being open to it at a later time.

Goobieman · Apr 19, 2010

repeter said:
We didn't have guns/arms in 1776?

The argument is usually that because the people who wrote the constitution could never have imagnied M16s, M60s, etc, that the constitution doesnt cover them.

I'd wager that if any of them saw an M16, they'd know what it was for.
If they saw CNN's feed dish, they wouldn't have a clue.

Goobieman · Apr 19, 2010

Jucon said:
For the record I am against average citizens owning assault rifles, but am also against the Patriot Act and tracking Emails.

Are you against the fomer because they were not around back when the Constitution was written?
The latter?

Goobieman · Apr 19, 2010

Jucon said:
And pro-gun loons like to use the "guns are guns and they are all covered by the 2nd amendment" as a reason to justify owning any and every type of weapon. So surely they would love for non-convicted gang members, drug dealers and unstable people to be able to own AK-47s and gatling guns.

Non sequitur.
Arguing what weapons are protected by the 2nd isn't relevant to who should or should not have guns.

See what I'm doing? I'm supposing a group's ideals to blindly label them. Does that make what I said right? No

No... that you put forth a non-sequitur makes you wrong.

Again I say, how about we trying understanding the other sides (and individuals from said sides) before labeling them?

The anti-gun side is already pretty easy to understand, and their arguments, such as they are, are pretty easy to defeat.

Goobieman · Apr 19, 2010

Jucon said:
My point is also proven by this poll, where no one has voted "yes", even though you assume anti-gun people would vote "yes". Well, I'm not anti-gun, but anti-civilians-owning-automatic-weapons... and I voted "no".

This does nothing but prove that those who -do- argue that the 2nd doesnt protect those weapons because they weren't around in 1791 are inconsistent.

Goobieman · Apr 19, 2010

Jucon said:
The major difference between gun owning rights and the other rights is that with guns, people can kill other people... more easily than with knives or other melee weapons.

Of course. That's why the right is protected -- because, sometimes, people need to kill other people.

By allowing everyone to own machine guns, you unintentionally are enabling violent people to own those same guns...

Strawman. No one argues that everyone should be allowed to own any gun, much less machineguns.

Coronado · Apr 19, 2010

Orion said:
E-mail accounts are property of the provider, and those providers can technically read your e-mails without your permission because the contents are on their servers. So to me this has more to do with the rights of the providers to not be searched.

Why is your government so hell bent on getting the go-ahead to do so many things without a warrant?

It's one less hoop to jump through. Plus, a warrant must be sworn to, show probable cause, and be to some degree specific as to what is being searched for. With no warrant, the authorities can simply justify their search by showing the evidence they have gathered (if any).

Jucon · Apr 19, 2010

Goobieman said:
Of course. That's why the right is protected -- because, sometimes, people need to kill other people.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. You absolutely have the right to own a gun. The place where I draw the line is when it comes to assault type weapons. I am wholly uncomfortable with citizens having access to military grade weapons. However I do understand the pro-gun rights people's arguments... I simply disagree with them concerning the extent that they want to extend their 2nd amendment right.

My MAIN point from those previous posts was to point out that people from all sides can stereotype the other sides... but that doesn't mean those stereotypes are always right.

earthworm · Apr 19, 2010

Are we stating that national security is secondary to "privacy", and one's fear of the government?
If so, then much work needs to be done in order to restore the people's trust in the government.
For me, I don't care, our government can read every single one of my eMails. They would be bored to tears and beyond.

Goobieman · Apr 19, 2010

Jucon said:
Let me make my point perfectly clear. You absolutely have the right to own a gun. The place where I draw the line is when it comes to assault type weapons. I am wholly uncomfortable with citizens having access to military grade weapons.

First things first...
You are sloshing a lot of terms around, and not using them correctly.

Machineguns are, legally, full-auto weapons. Technically, they have a much narrower defintion; there are several kinds of full-auto weapons, not all of which are, technically, machineguns.

Assault rifles are 'military grade' weaopons. They are select-fire and thereore, legally, but not technically, machineguns.

'Assault weapons' are semi-auto guns that look scary.

However I do understand the pro-gun rights people's arguments... I simply disagree with them concerning the extent that they want to extend their 2nd amendment right.

Given the court ulings to that effect, it is impossible to argue that "arms", as the term is used in the 2nd, does not cover any and every class of fireaems you care to mention.

Further, the record shows your fear of civilian possession of these weapons is unwarranted - legally owned machineguns are for all intents and purposes never used in crime.

Goobieman · Apr 19, 2010

earthworm said:
Are we stating that national security is secondary to "privacy", and one's fear of the government?

Sometimes. That's why not every search requires a warrant.

Jucon · Apr 19, 2010

Goobieman said:
Further, the record shows your fear of civilian possession of these weapons is unwarranted - legally owned machineguns are for all intents and purposes never used in crime.

My "fears" are not that law abiding citizens will get these weapons. My fears are that non-law abiding citizens will more easily get their hands on these weapons. You can say my fears are unwarranted all day and night... my opinions still stand strong.

Legally owned machine guns are not used in crimes because they are obtained by law-abiding citizens and are handed out selectively. And I hope to keep it that way.

Goobieman · Apr 19, 2010

Jucon said:
My "fears" are not that law abiding citizens will get these weapons. My fears are that non-law abiding citizens will get their hands on these weapons.

Then you need to address that, rather than access for the law abiding.
If there is a machinegun used in a crime, you can bet it was not a legal gun used by its legal owner.

You can say my fears are unwarranted all day and night... my opinions still stand strong.

Well, that just means you're arguing from your phobias.
If you don't have a sound argument to support your position, then no one need bother taking it seriously - your "fears" are not sufficient argument to infringe upon my rights.

Legally owned machine guns are not used in crimes because they are obtained by law-abiding citizens and are handed out selectively.

No more 'selectively' than any other firearm.
So, if they arent used in crime, as you agree, what's your porblem with law-abiding citizens legally owning them?

Jucon · Apr 19, 2010

Goobieman said:
Then you need to address that, rather than access for the law abiding.
If there is a machinegun used in a crime, you can bet it was not a legal gun used by its legal owner.

Well, that just means you're arguing from your phobias.
If you don't have a sound argument to support your position, then no one need bother taking it seriously - your "fears" are not sufficient argument to infringe upon my rights.

No more 'selectively' than any other firearm.
So, if they arent used in crime, as you agree, what's your porblem with law-abiding citizens legally owning them?

You should try telling any conservative talk show host the bold part.

I would never and have never presented my opinions as being facts in themselves. They are simply MY beliefs. You are welcome to taking my opinions for what they are worth or not take them deeming them worthless... it's up to you. But the point of a forum is to discuss topics with facts AND opinions.

And your assumption that more machine guns would not lead to more violence is also an OPINION, not based on fact. But you don't see me giving you **** for that. By all means, speak your mind... but who are you to tell me I AM wrong because you think I am?

Infringe on your rights? Just because you can't get a certain kind of gun does not mean you have no right at all. Go buy 50 hand guns and 25 shotguns for all I care. With that much firepower how could anyone be worried about their safety?

You want a machine gun? Go through the set procedures. You can't get a machine gun? Go join the military. I see no reason to obtain a machine gun besides for recreation and defending oneself from a government that they view as tyrannical. I for one don't view the government as being tyrannical and don't see it getting that way... so I don't see any reason for getting a machine gun and I would be against any uprising against the current government. If you don't like what the government is doing, vote for someone different in the next election.

And if you really want to know where some of my fears come from concerning military grade weapons... look no further than Mexico.

Goobieman · Apr 20, 2010

Jucon said:
You should try telling any conservative talk show host the bold part.

Red herring.

I would never and have never presented my opinions as being facts in themselves. They are simply MY beliefs. You are welcome to taking my opinions for what they are worth or not take them deeming them worthless... it's up to you. But the point of a forum is to discuss topics with facts AND opinions.

If your opinions arent based in fact, then there's not much to them.

And your assumption that more machine guns would not lead to more violence is also an OPINION, not based on fact

When did I voice this opinion?
Oh - I didn't. Another strawman.

But you don't see me giving you **** for that. By all means, speak your mind... but who are you to tell me I AM wrong because you think I am?

So far, you have been -demonstrated- wrong.

Infringe on your rights? Just because you can't get a certain kind of gun does not mean you have no right at all.

This is just as valid as arguing that banning the Roman Catholic Church does not violate the 1st amendment because you can still be Lutheran.

You want a machine gun? Go through the set procedures.

So... you -don't- have a problem with law abiding citizens having machineguns?
Make up your mind.

I see no reason to obtain a machine gun besides for recreation and defending oneself from a government that they view as tyrannical.

I see no reason to burn the flag or defecate on a picture of Jesus -- but I agree that you have the right to do so. So... what's your point?

mbig · Apr 20, 2010

jamesrage said:
Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

Yes(because the email was not around when the 4th amendment was written,nor is it tangible)

No(because the 4th amendment applies to today just as it did back then when it was written))

Maybe/I do not know.

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, ....

"Monitor" is a more Complex word than you make it out to be.

If the government anonymously monitors all net/phone traffic (the Trunk line) just looking for a few key words (such as 'TNT' in Arabic or Urdu) until they get a voice/text hit, then it's not a problem.

If the government abuses this privilege, and it's been shown it's a temptation they can't resist, then it should be prohibited totally and any guilty given prison time.
-

Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

Should the government monitor emails without a warrant?

Yes[because email was not around with the 4th amendment was written,nor is it actual property)

No(because the 4th amendment applies to today just as it did back then when it was written)

Maybe/I do not know.

More options

jamesrage

Jucon

repeter

Zyphlin

repeter

Anarcho-fascist

Zyphlin

repeter

Goobieman

Goobieman

Goobieman

Goobieman

Goobieman

Coronado

Voluntary Resignation

Jucon

earthworm

Goobieman

Goobieman

Jucon

Goobieman

Jucon

Goobieman

mbig

onomatopoeic