The Fourth Amendment used to protect against illegal searches and seizures. Not so anymore. Along with recent loses enacted under the Bush, Jr. administration (and continued under the Obama administration) regarding phone records, the Supreme Court rendered a verdict that begs the question: "Is the Fourth Amendment no longer valid?" Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution In Supremes’ DNA decision, Breyer and Scalia switch sides–again Dominic Perella 6:54 PM on 06/03/2013 Maryland v. King, today’s blockbuster Supreme Court DNA decision, shines a spotlight on a fact too often obscured in coverage of politically-polarized Washington: the high court’s votes don’t always track along party lines. That’s worth keeping in mind as court watchers await historic decisions on gay marriage and affirmative action, both slated to come down in the next three weeks. The court in King was addressing what one justice called “perhaps the most important criminal procedure case this this court has heard in decades”: can police take DNA swabs from arrestees just as they take fingerprints? By a 5-4 vote, the justices decided that the answer is yes. But the split was not between law-and-order Republicans versus pro-defendant Democrats. Instead, Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer joined four Republicans to uphold warrantless DNA testing. Meanwhile, Antonin Scalia—Reagan appointee and longtime scourge of liberals—joined three Democratic appointees in siding with the defendant. And his dissent was a fiery screed that attacked his conservative colleagues for a “vast” and “scary” ruling that, he said, would have shocked the Founding Fathers. (edit) The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, was steeped in the practicalities of law enforcement. Kennedy wrote that when someone is arrested for a “serious crime,” the police can swab his cheek for DNA without a warrant, just as they take fingerprints. And they can compare that DNA sample against a national database to see if it matches DNA from past crime scenes. That search is constitutional, Kennedy wrote, because the government’s interests in the DNA comparison—for example, determining whether the arrestee is dangerous, and whether he is likely to flee if released on bail—outweigh the intrusion of asking him to open his mouth for a cheek swab. Those law-and-order practicalities, however, were beside the point for Scalia. For him, the case was simple: the Founding Fathers would never have tolerated a regime where police can search a person—even an arrestee—for evidence of a crime when there’s no reason to suspect that he committed it. That, Scalia wrote, was the difference between DNA collection and fingerprints. Police take fingerprints primarily for identification, he explained. That’s acceptable because police must identify those they arrest. DNA, on the other hand, is collected for one reason only: “to solve unsolved crimes.” That is not acceptable, he wrote, because it’s exactly what the Fourth Amendment has always forbidden: a search of a person for evidence of a particular crime without any suspicion that he was the perpetrator. Read more: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/03/in-supremes-dna-decision-breyer-and-scalia-switch-sides-again/ Maybe most people don't care if they can now have their DNA collected and analyzed when arrested, but I'm sure if the cops listened to their phone conversation, well, that a different story.
Hey, if you haven't done anything wrong, what have you got to worry about? All that these silly Constitutional rights do is protect and encourage terrorists and criminals. They are the the result of outdated 18th Century humanist idealism totally unsuited for the realities of 2013
lol...I posted this thread intentionally as a caveat to my posts about warrantless surveillance, via phone records, email, etc.. The phone stuff is easy (for me anyway) to make a non-issue, but of course isn't true for everyone else. People need to communicate, and phones, email, etc. is the way to do it quickly and efficiently. In other words: I understand the hypocritical nature of my comments in that thread. I understand the angst people have about it, but disagree completely as to there being any way to stop it. If they did, it'd just be telling terrorists "You win, we will not, and can not stop you from using phones, email, etc. to kill us" My issue with the Supreme Court's DNA decision is different, and more "old school" in principle. The ruling will allow cops to swab people for serious crimes, a power they will abuse. Black men in particular will be harmed, as cops target them more than other groups. In order to solve past cases, they'll have an "oops" moment, swabbing cheeks that they had no reason to, and yes, they will be successful in solving past crimes. There's the problem though, as Scalia pointed out, it's illegal search and seizure...well, used to be. Eh, don't commit crimes and you won't have reason to fear, right? Same principle applies to phone and email surveilance. The difference is that bias and prejudice isn't much of a factor in warranless surveillance of phones and emails, where this ruling reeks of it.
I like your post because I agree with it in principle. Believe me when I say that I wish the monitoring of communications wasn't necessary, but IMO it's THE critical tool in preventing organized terrorist acts. It can't stop all of them, and I refuse to elaborate on that, but it can stop a lot of them. I know, at the cost of freedoms. Freedom in this case is mass death though. Once cell-phones and the internet became part of our culture, it became a tool for people to organize and kill. We can't "unopen" that Pandora's Box, it's done...unless you want to revert to pre-90s, maybe pre-80s technology. The Supreme Courts ruling differs significantly though, as it assumes that police will behave in an unbiased, unprejudiced manner. They won't. Blacks in particular are going to be swabbed, even if they hadn't committed a crime worthy of it. The problem police are going to have is processing though. DNA takes a long time to process, and the police do not have the facilities to do this, they don't have the resources in place. In fact, there is currently a massive backlog, and this recent ruling is going to increase that exponentially. Where will they get the funds? States and feds can't help much in that. They have to ramp-up the entire process, hire more people...much much more people. Deja vu again, btw. This is the third time in the past couple years I've posed particulars of this argument with you. That means, we have not resolved this issue, and I can expect to pose it again eventually lol
We're not done with this one, old friend lol Believe me I can see the attraction of the argument. Under different conditions I'd probably agree with it too. But humans are a long way from achieving those conditions imo. I'll be dead 1,000 years and we will barely have started.
All I can say is "I understand completely." ..and I accept that I'm gettin' ol', OK, time to go feed pigeons and yell at skateboarders and other "young punks". Nahhhh, couldn't do it. I'd wind up encouraging them. Then they'd wind up trying to teach me a move. I gave that up as a young teen, out of fear of hospital costs. I still might put a band together and play for 'em though. It's something I've thought about for thirty years, but haven't acted on. I think I'm ready lol
Get on the phone. Put a group together. Then haul out the skateboard and unwind for the afternoon. The pigeons can take care of themselves.
The 4th amendment doesn't protect from obtaining public records, and regardless of what people think, phone records are public. That is how telemarketers and many others are able to buy and mine info gathered from your phones. Read the small print in your contract. Not to mention, anyone has direct access to your "private" calls on cell phones. All you need is a PBX capable radio. We sift through countless cell phone conversations at work on our radios searching for free lines. Those air waves are public domain. I for one have nothing to hide so could care less. I also know they don't mine everyone's info as that would take an astronomical amount of manpower, which the DHS simply does not have. It's nice to imagine there are computer programs designed to compensate for that, but there isn't. People have bloated this into the fat pig that it isn't.
No, your phone records are not public. See http://canons.sog.unc.edu/?p=5602 Now, that is not to say that the company may not sell your records if you give them permission, but that still does not make them public records.
Nothing in that report says they aren't. In fact, this statement leaves it wide open: " however, personal calls, and any calls that relate to matters exempted under the public records law could be redacted. transaction of public business". There is no such thing as privacy with cell phones.
I will, soon. I gotta get this tooth pulled first though. I went to work today, but needed a vicoprofen to do it, and can't keep taking them just to play music, they're almost six-bucks a piece. Yikes! I got a friend of mine in mind, known him when we were kids. He's played in bands, but I haven't seen him in twenty years. He's going to be blown away with some of the stuff I've come up with. Can't wait to show 'im what I can do now, as I'm improving at an accelerated rate to get the ball rolling and make some money. I put this off far too long.
Well, If you are a government employee and make personal calls on your government phone, your quote applies - that they could be redacted. Think about that. Try this one;
Right, and even hard lines are subject to being intercepted. I can literally go out to a phone line and "tap" it in seconds, if I so desired. I don't, and won't, as it's illegal. And besides, I don't wanna listen to people yap about their goiters, bladder issues, etc. lol Bottom line: People have trouble distinguishing between private and public info. I "get" the issue people are having with both of these losses to our fourth amendment rights, and am willing to compromise. But it's not my decision to make. I'm not in a city, like New York, Chicago, or L.A. As such, any terrorist act is only going to affect me indirectly, through increased costs and loss of services (should the economy take a major hit). But, I'm not willing to say New York or Chicago (Wisconsin advised terrorist to attack the city) or any other place should have to live in constant fear of the knowledge that no one gives a crap about their lives, that we'd just let them be attacked to protect certain privacy rights, rights that are misunderstood. The DNA searches are almost the same thing. They will solve crimes, past rapes especially, and I'm only just against it...like 51 % against it (the SC ruling on DNA), for that reason. I do want to solve those crimes and take the people responsible for those crimes off the streets, but only if the cops actually obey the law. They won't. Most cops are decent, but they have huge egos and tend to abuse the power we give them. Some of that is probably due to their wages, which are way too low, IMO. With good wages, better cops will be interested in joining, and the bad cops can be thinned out. The whole issue is FUBAR, but what are the alternatives? Increased success rate for mass murders here? Unsolved rapes and murders? (shrugs) I guess I can take a swab if I must. It helps that I've never been arrested, or commited serious crimes though lol "What crimes have you committed?" The worst was believing republican politicians are just decent people with no actual will to harm me. I see now that they don't care if any of us die, especially the poor and Democrats in large cities. They gotta go lol
I guess it comes down to they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. People blamed the government for not knowing about terrorist attacks before they happened. The only way to do that is to spy using a giant net...one that involves everyone. But, when they do that people complain about their supposed loss of rights. It's not your right to use a phone, or the internet, or the mail. It's a privilege. There is a huge difference- not that many Americans can see that difference.
It seems like following that reasoning, you have no right to buy a pen and some paper and use them with a reasonable expectation of privacy either. And who grants you the "privilege" of using the internet? Sorry, I need more. I'm not getting this.
Not sure where I stand on this court decision but everyone one should understand that DNA is broader reaching than just a specific individual. Even if a sample dosen't match a suspect to a past specific crime it could be matched and used to narrow the suspect list to a specific genological lineage. Allowing law enforcement to systemtically swab an entire family (Mother, Fater, Sibling, Cousin, Aunt, Uncle and etc.)
Agreed. Once a sufficient database is created, crimes can be solved by using comparisons to family, should the criminal never have had DNA taken from him/her self. I think we're at least a decade away from extensively using DNA to solve crimes though, should the ruling stand. Laws may soon be put into place to limit it's use, once the lawsuits begin challenging the state's right to swab given such and such a crime. I doubt an 85 year old woman caught shoplifting will have to provide DNA, but some day she might have to...if the cops insist...so lawsuits are-a-comin' from this. Aside from the constitutional issues, the biggest problem they'll have is processing samples. It would take an exponential amount of effort to process all the new DNA samples. They are already backlogged, as they add more and more samples to be processed, they'd have no choice but to demand additional funding for personnel, training, equipment, facilities, etc. With constitutional issues like this, I'm always on the fence. The reason being that I can see both sides of the story. With DNA swabbing, although I consider it an unwarranted search and seizure, I also consider it a valuable tool for solving crimes. With the communications issue, it's also an unwarranted search and seizure issue, but in order to prevent mass murders. It's a tough call either way I look at it. I'm choosing to restrict the former and allow the latter, but it doesn't take much new info for me to reverse either choice. I feel guilty saying that, knowing I'll almost certainly never be directly affected by a bombing, since I rarely enter a large city like Chicago or New York. If cops behaved, and only used swabbing on things like murders and rapes, I could support it. I don't see them doing that, so I'm against it. If the feds use their database solely to prevent mass murders, I'd support their mining of communications, but if the feds use that personal info as a political tool, such as outing an affair, I have a tough time accepting their data-mining. Tough call no matter what side you're on. I've made my choices, but it's certain that abuses are going to happen, so I'm still on the fence about supporting these issues. I'm not someone who keeps secrets though, but if I was working in government, or was a successful business person, I'd make sure to never write emails or make phone calls that can be used against me with any effectiveness. That would be a near impossibility though, since people will use anything against you.
IQ<1, you didn't seem to be too concerned when Obama stepped on the Fourth Amendment when he signed the NDAA into law. Why the sudden concern about this? http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/angry-about-national-defense-authorization-act View attachment 1735
