Slashdot Mirror
'Fourth Amendment Caucus' Aims To Fight Government Surveillance (usatoday.com)
schwit1 quotes a report from USA Today: An unusual coalition of 13 Republicans and 12 Democrats on Wednesday announced the creation of the House Fourth Amendment Caucus to protect Americans' privacy rights against calls for increased government surveillance in the wake of terrorist attacks. The group named itself after the Fourth Amendment because the lawmakers fear that the government is increasingly seeking the power to search Americans' electronic data without a warrant. They see that as a threat to the Constitutional amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. "In the face of difficult circumstances, some are quick to pursue extreme, unconstitutional measures; the Fourth Amendment Caucus will be a moderating influence that gives voice to countless Americans whose rights are violated by these ill-conceived policies," said Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich), who joined the group led by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), and Ted Poe (R-Texas).
It's quite frustrating to see my country turn into an Orwellian nightmare. Most voters don't care, either because they don't understand the ramifications of a surveillance state, or because they fall into party lines and turn it into a petty squabble. So seeing a coalition that's equally composed of reds and blues is a very good sign I think. But we'll have to wait and see if this goes anywhere.
...allowed the wholesale search of business records without constitutionally valid warrants.
Remember, the failure isn't just the Legislative branch. It is also the Judicial branch, which doesn't smack these down and punish the offenders. And it's the executive branch, which seeks patently illegal powers. We have a complete breakdown in the checks and balances system, which is supposed to prevent these abuses.
...allowed the wholesale search of business records without constitutionally valid warrants.
Remember, the failure isn't just the Legislative branch. It is also the Judicial branch, which doesn't smack these down and punish the offenders. And it's the executive branch, which seeks patently illegal powers. We have a complete breakdown in the checks and balances system, which is supposed to prevent these abuses.
Ironically, this complete breakdown was caused by the threat of terrorism driving a "necessity" for an Orwellian solution. The end result is our Rights becoming a victim of domestic terrorism, and this concept of Freedom dissolving right out from underneath American citizens who are far too self-absorbed in social media to actually give a shit.
...allowed the wholesale search of business records without constitutionally valid warrants.
Remember, the failure isn't just the Legislative branch. It is also the Judicial branch, which doesn't smack these down and punish the offenders. And it's the executive branch, which seeks patently illegal powers. We have a complete breakdown in the checks and balances system, which is supposed to prevent these abuses.
Since the first line of the "judicial branch" is a secret court that works without public oversight or even effective Congressional oversight, I think the real judicial branch gets a bit of a first pass on this. Our courts are set up in an adversarial way where you need to have two sides with clear standing to be able to seek judicial review. Even getting discovery requires some proof of standing. And then you run into state secrets being asserted.
Even with the Snowden disclosures by the time you get to court you have an old document that says you were spied upon in the past and which logically means that you are likely being spied on now, but some courts are saying that it doesn't matter because the order expired or there is a new law now and you can't prove you are being spied on now and whether you are or not it is classified. So I will give you the point that the courts are using esoteric legal theory to bury their (our) heads in the sand even though the clear pattern of abuse of the constitution is being established.
The level of willful disregard for the evidence that we have seen in some 4th amendment court cases would be like the courts saying well you have video of a gun being fired in the direction of the person and then the person falling down with a gunshot wound, but how can we really know that there was a bullet in the air since it isn't hanging in the air now.
I'm hoping this was simply an laughably over-the-top statement to make a point, but just in case...
How about "you will never be truly safe period". No matter how many rights you forfeit to your would-be masters, they will never be able to protect you from every threat, every danger, every bump in the night, every offensive word, or even every perceived slight. You might have to take some responsibility for your own safety, recognize that the world can be a dangerous place, and that some people don't mind the risk of venturing outside for fear of being struck by lighting. Living in complete fear is no way to live.
They can start be dismantling the USA PATRIOT Act. A bad idea, always was. Tell the security services they need to play by the same rules everyone else does.
Ironically, this complete breakdown was caused by the threat of terrorism driving a "necessity" for an Orwellian solution.
This has been going on far longer than that. Terrorism is just the excuse de jure to further expand the assault on your rights. Before that (and actually concurrently) it's the war on drugs and child molesters. There's also currently the SJW war on the first amendment (with the liberal types who should be screaming loudest in protest jumping on the bandwagon and yelling "yee-haw!"). Before that it was the hippies and the black panthers. Before that it was the commies. Before that it was nazis. Before that it was the Great Depression.
Blaming the excuse de jure is just playing into the hands of those out to take your rights away (whatever their motives). As the GP noted, "compromise" has already happened... over and over. "Compromise" is a code word for "we'll be back later."
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Yes, they do. They scan and log the addresses.
Sigh... (facepalm) Let me repeat myself. They are not as a routine matter opening your sealed letter or package. What part of that didn't you understand?
Are you seriously complaining that they read the address on the outside of the box or envelope so that they can deliver your package? Seriously?
I can't think of a politician off the top of my head but I can think of a business. Qwest was the single major telecommunications provider that told the NSA to get lost when they demanded direct access to customer records. "By coincidence" a short time later most of their major government contracts were canceled and they found themselves under federal investigation for insider trading.
You forget, only the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct.
They're pretty late to the party. The fourth amendment has obviously been a "it's just a piece of paper" issue to legislators and the legislation they create since the patriot act was squeezed out of the ass of congress. The rest of the bill of rights hasn't fared much better (3rd amendment excepted.) Lots of other unconstitutional legislation currently in play as well — eminent domain, commerce clause, ex post facto laws, etc. Perhaps I'm just too cynical because of where we are today, but it seems extremely unlikely to me that congress, with or without this... caucus... will get anything done that slows or stops the ongoing government extra-constitutional behaviors.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.