Senate bill rewrite lets feds read your e-mail without warrants

[stephkyle7]

I never claimed an allegiance to any ideology.
The libertaerian perspective on criminality is about the ONLY platform of theirs that I approve of.
I dont get why you feel I must line up with any doctrine from top to bottom.I find that narrow minded.
I believe we should be more fiscally conservative and more socially liberal as well.
So there are parts of all three platforms that i find to be more deliberate in there logic.
I mean it seems to me a lot of times people LOOK for points of disagreement to chew on in here.
I dont know any other party that is so closely alligned to my views on criminality then the libertarian, that doesnt mean I support the party or that I am championing their causes or identify myself as such,I simply agree with that one notion.
I used the term "libertarian" so I didnt have to list every act that would apply to criminality...thats it.

Yes Bronco, I get it.
All ive said is that as important as it is to you, it is equally unimportant to me.
That doesnt mean I want the government top have the power to act with impunity and drag people of in the middle of the night ala the Little Steven and the disciple hit "desapredecidos"(the dissapperd ones)
I am fully versed in the extremities that foreign governments throughout time and place have reached when unconstrained.
But the reality is they are and have been doing it for ohhhh, around twenty years already. they moniter e-mails, they monitor phones, they monitor just about everything.
Now, as long as they dont start taking things too far...im cool with it.
I just am, Im sorry if you find that Naive or foolish, I just understand that we do things to fit our needs.
the invade other soverign countries to kill terrorists.
we sell arms to drug dealers that will suport our causes,
we suffer tyrants that starve and brutalize their citizens if they are the enemies of our enemies.
None of it is good,but we make choices.
In my honest opinion, if they werent breaking the law, all day every day...wed have been hit atleast another 6-10 times already.
Im not trying to convince you of anything other then I dont see things as you do.
maybe its becasue Ive never known what it is to be subjegated by an authoritarian regime,but whether some one heard me talking dirty to my wife on the phone isnt a concern of mine.
As far as the other stuff, banking or buisness stuff, sure you want to feel secure about that But people are already getting that info right NOW.

[stephkyle7]

I can see that pulp fiction references are inane for you but on that last Notion I always loved the application of that parable in Stephen Kings the deadzone.

would you kill one person to prevent the death of millions?
Id have to say I would.

[C-ross12]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Great quote.

[dbroncos78087]

I can see that pulp fiction references are inane for you but on that last Notion I always loved the application of that parable in Stephen Kings the deadzone.

would you kill one person to prevent the death of millions?
Id have to say I would.

I have no problem with a Pulp Fiction reference. I can't give an honest answer to the millions question though. Based on knowing myself, I have to say that my answer would be no though. I don't think I could do it even knowing it would save millions.

But as a sci-fi fan, you could have also gone with the Spock quote. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Or the quote that might actually back up your viewpoint (as I understand it better), "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong".

[americaspasttim]

My opinion the exceptions already to the Fourth Amendment are sufficient, this seems to leap well beyond what is reasonable. From the little bit that I have read about it, I'm pretty confident the Supreme Court would overthrow it swiftly and decisively...

[americaspasttim]

I don't know how gang laws work, but if they are peacefully assembling, then they are fine. But the First Amendment only protects peaceful assembling. If they are killing people or committing crimes then that isn't peaceful.

If an officer goes into the home and finds a child being molested, then sadly yes he should leave. We have rules and laws for a reason. The exception is never good and almost always terrible. But if you start carving out exceptions here and there, then soon you no longer have the rule of law. What you get is a rule by situation and that is never going to end well. That will lead to a tyranny or dictatorship and a situation where we fear our government.

It really doesn't matter if people who are secretive are the ones up to no good. It needs to be proved the right way. Breaking the rules is what the criminals do, not what the cops should be doing.

Just wanted to comment on this one portion at the risk of approaching offtopicness. Absolutely unequivocally no. Assuming the entry is as unquestionably illegal as possible, the officer still as a legal and moral responsibility to take action...

[dbroncos78087]

Just wanted to comment on this one portion at the risk of approaching offtopicness. Absolutely unequivocally no. Assuming the entry is as unquestionably illegal as possible, the officer still as a legal and moral responsibility to take action...

I don't think its off topic, your comment gets the very heart of this issue. Do special circumstances exist that allow us to (for lack of a better word) ignore the way the rules are structured to adapt to that special circumstance.

If entrance is gained illegally, then I don't know what the cop is going to do other than interrupt that one act. The act will stop, the guy will be brought in front of a judge and tried and something to the effect of "fruit of the poisonous tree" will be uttered by the judge. Then he will be off free and might even get a restraining order against the police department and the activity will be able to continue. It stops the immediate problem but makes the larger problem worse.

Now obviously this molester scenario is a distraction from the real issue, but even in this abstract, serious situation I think an adherence to the rules and protocol is what needs to occur.

[behindmydesk]

For one this crap is scary and Whitesox's quote is good. And I am frightened by the attitude of I have nothing to hide so i'm ok with it. I have nothing to really hide either but there is no way this should be allowed.

Now on APT's and DB's convo, yes the cop should do something just to stop the molestation. But the charges are going to have to be dropped due to illegal **** by the Alaska wildlife police department.

[dbroncos78087]

For one this crap is scary and Whitesox's quote is good. And I am frightened by the attitude of I have nothing to hide so i'm ok with it. I have nothing to really hide either but there is no way this should be allowed.

Now on APT's and DB's convo, yes the cop should do something just to stop the molestation. But the charges are going to have to be dropped due to illegal **** by the Alaska wildlife police department.

The problem I have is that given the hypothetical, the officer has no right to have entered and anything he does is going to be thrown out and make the situation worse because the molester is going to get a free pass.

[corralski]

I completely understand the constitutionality of privacy, especially how it applies to the overreach of the crown in the 18th century.
Im just saying that some of the freedoms we enjoy have consequencs.

WQe dont seem to mind to much when we trample the rights of Gang members when they do sweeps and association penalties right?
I mean on a philosophical level, we say...oh, that is wrong, but on a practical level we are happy to see a bunch of jerks get what they have coming.

If a Police officer ignores right to search laws and enters a home and finds a child victim being molested, should he excuse himself and ignore what he saw?

Its a slippery slope,I understand that holding the line is the only way to keep from an avalanche,Im just speaking from personal experiences and the people Ive known that have been the most secretive,wind up being the ones up to no good.

The gangs might be a bad example, police need to have the gang declared as a criminal organization before they can proceed with any street action as you mentioned.

It all moves through the courts according to law....

[GasMan]

The problem I have is that given the hypothetical, the officer has no right to have entered and anything he does is going to be thrown out and make the situation worse because the molester is going to get a free pass.

I'm sure the molested person would still prefer that the officer intervened. It would be preferable if both the molester and cop were tried for their respective crimes.

[dbroncos78087]

I'm sure the molested person would still prefer that the officer intervened. It would be preferable if both the molester and cop were tried for their respective crimes.

The officer would lose his job or receive a suspension. The molestor would be off scott free. I don't think you want that outcome, nor do I.

[americaspasttim]

I don't think its off topic, your comment gets the very heart of this issue. Do special circumstances exist that allow us to (for lack of a better word) ignore the way the rules are structured to adapt to that special circumstance.

If entrance is gained illegally, then I don't know what the cop is going to do other than interrupt that one act. The act will stop, the guy will be brought in front of a judge and tried and something to the effect of "fruit of the poisonous tree" will be uttered by the judge. Then he will be off free and might even get a restraining order against the police department and the activity will be able to continue. It stops the immediate problem but makes the larger problem worse.

Now obviously this molester scenario is a distraction from the real issue, but even in this abstract, serious situation I think an adherence to the rules and protocol is what needs to occur.

I definitely see you point, and agree to an extent. However, you asked do special circumstances exist that allow us to...ignore the way the rules are structured, and actually there are. To use the example of the cop entering the house and interrupting a child being molested, why did the cop enter in the first place? did he see through a window the crime taking place? In that case, the exception of exigent circumstances apply and the officer is allowed to enter without a warrant, and it would be upheld. Did he merely hear something going on inside that he felt sounded like a crime taking place? That becomes more of a grey area, and would depend on how well the officer articulated why he thought that particular sound meant to him a crime was taking place. It would probably be fought extensively by the defense, and may or may not be upheld. Now take an extreme example from the tv show in my avy lol, in which case the cop is walking by the house of someone he knows is a criminal, and just for ***** and giggles boots the door, and then discovers the crime in progress. Obviously in this incident the arrest will be thrown out and the cop fired and sued, and you're right, the molester would go free to molest again. In law the ends don't justify the means, and I think we all agree on that. The problem with this bill is it is allowing a portion of the checks and balances in the legal system to be skipped, and that's what makes it dangerous. For instance (from the OP link)

Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.

Okay the first part has always existed, but what, pray tell, exigent circumstances could possibly exist that the FCC or SEC are investigating. And worse, they'll be free from subsequent judicial review? That, is bull ****...

[stephkyle7]

first ,
whitsoxfans quote is NOT good(lol). it actually very stupid. (not you personally sir, just the quote).
It makes no sense and it really bugs me when people get all weak in the knees over a "little ditty" that is clever in its structure but ultimately means nothing.
How does sacrificing "some " freedom equate to deserving or not deserving ANYTHING.
That is complete hyperbole and conveluted nonsense.

It is designed to eliminate any basis of debate ,and as such is a denial of liberty IN AND OF ITSELF.
But MAN does it SOUND cool.(lol)

secondly...some of you are missing the point of my analogy.

Is it illegal for the cop to enter? ofcourse.
does he stop the molestation? ofcourse.
does he LIE IN ANYWAY TO MAKE SURE THE CASE STICKS? OFCOURSE.
"i heard a call for help"
I heard a struggle"
" I smelled Marijuana"
There are a million ways to subvert the letter of our laws and people do it endlessly every day.

[WES445]

The problem with this that government is made up of politicans, and beaucrats. When the FBI investigated Rev King as a possible threat to american society, they found out that he was cheating on his wife (atleast they reported this). They harrassue his wife with messages like "Do you know who your husband is screwing". They were investigating him as threat and used everything they could use to destory him.

If the government worked like it should, I would have no problem with this, but, as been proven in the past, often it doesn't for political or beaucrated reason. Suppose the government or a administration had a hard on for a social activist, they could use damaging infro on him, or his family to farther their political goals thru personal emails. After going thru the Bush administration a few years back, this isn't a impossible thing to happen.