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.
So constitution be damned right?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
...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.
First on the list should be to stop the 4th Amendment free zones
"A Republic. If you can keep it."
-- B Franklin
It seems we're nearing the end of this little experiment.
You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
is often the justification used when reality and the law strike each other head-on. There are many interpretations of the phrase but these days it's used to say that the laws cannot encompass everything that people throw at it. Which, to my mind, is chickening out. It is allowing fear to reign and decide for us the actions we take to protect ourselves from the world.
I believe that it can be agreed that all of us want to live in a safe, civil society. So we write our laws with that in mind. Not everyone agrees as to what "safe" or "civil" means and those bounds are constantly being tested, much to our greater benefit. Thus we want to protect that civility and that safety as much as possible. The problem, this tension in our current world comes from the fact that we know, with intuition and through demonstration that there is only so much we can do. Some of us sigh and accept that there will be those accidents, incidents, and attacks which cannot ever be prevented. That the cost of having a civil and safe society is one in which others, regrettably, will come to harm through no action of their own.
And then there are those who don't. Whose drive to protect has been left unchecked and has become diseased. Somewhere, somehow, these people with the best of intentions has had their perspective mutated to the point where they only see how much control they do not possess. Maybe some of these people see the opportunity to get greater wealth or personal power. Maybe they were never taught how to let go of things in life. Who knows? I certainly don't. I'm in the first group.
All of this was say that it is not against outsiders that we must protect ourselves. It it not the asylum seeker, the immigrant, nor the H1B visa holder that brings a single iota of threat to civility or safety. It is not the fear monger, the hate spewer, nor the yellow journalist. These may be pitied and reviled but never feared.
What we must do is to check our fear. We cannot help but feel it. Nature gave it to us for survival reasons and it did our ancestors well to listen. These are not those days, however, and we cannot fall back to acting as our ancestors did.
WTF. Justin Amash is one of the few members of congress whose words and action match up. He is for limited, constitutional government. He presented himself that way to his constituents and has voted that way.
And, in case it matters, he's Eastern Orthodox. (As your post seemed to imply that he was Muslim and therefore pro-violence.)
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Maybe they can officially apologize to Snowden and get him returned to the US, ideally with a ticker tape parade in his honor. If he hadn't done what he did, the mass violations of the 4th amendment would still be flying under the radar. They're still happening, but at least we are more aware of them now.
The Supreme Court might help with some of it -- they ruled the government needs warrants to listen in on your phone calls, even though it passes through the hands of third parties because, among other things, The People have an expectation of privacy.
As more and more of your private "papers", in 4th Amendment terms, goes online and into "cloud", the idea that it is in 3rd party hands and you thus have no expectation of privacy, needs to die finally.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
...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.
Make breaking the law a crime. Yeah, totally crazy, right? Except, that's how laws that don't apply to government employees work. We need to criminalize "breaking" the 4th amendment along with the rest of them. It'll only take one or two government criminals going to jail before the rest catch on.
Sadly, it really is that simple and congress could do that tomorrow.
Do you have ESP?
For those wondering who is in the 4th Amendment caucus you can find the list at the bottom here.
Not surprising my congressman John Kline is absent from this list but then he hasn't met a war or surveillance action he didn't like.
Time to offend someone
To answer your question, more than will have died by giving up their privacy.
Time to offend someone
...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.
If we don't have the 1st AND the 2nd, then the 4th isn't a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked by the government at any time.
All the amendments are necessary and to varying degrees they all protect us and each other. Without the 4th amendment it would be trivial to quell free speech. Same with the 5th. Etc. They all matter. Before the 13th amendment black people were not protected by the 1st amendment and the 2nd actually worked against them. Before the 15th amendment women didn't enjoy full rights of the 1st amendment. They all matter.
The notion that the 2nd amendment is what protects your constitutional rights is a tired and idiotic argument. First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US. There is nothing special about the US that requires civilians to own guns to protect their rights. Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights. Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one. Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights. If you want to see what the civil rights movement in the 1960s would have looked like with lots of guns and weapons, see the Israeli/Palestine conflict. See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights. Second, if the government decides they want to force you to do something, your little pee shooter isn't worth anything against a real army or police force. Individually it provides no meaningful protection. Collectively they are not needed - get enough people together to protest and you don't need to shoot anyone. If the society devolves into a civil war like Syria, none of the amendments will matter anymore anyway.
If you want to own a gun I'm right with you. I own firearms myself. But the only argument that makes any sense is that you own a gun because you like to own a gun. You don't need it to feed your family. You don't need it to protect your rights from the government. You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals. You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose. You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control. Nobody is going to take your gun away. Arguing against reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is indefensible.
I live in SW Michigan, am a local union president, and vote mostly for Democrats - with the typical exception of Justin Amash. I have never voted against him.
Justin fought against SOPA, for privacy, and has published his rationale for every vote that he makes.
Because he stands for, and listens to his constituents, I would gladly vote for Justin Amash for President.
It seems we're nearing the end of this little experiment.
The "experiment" barely ran three years
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
I agree that lots of excuses have been used to infringe on civil rights. What I think is different is that terrorism is a more effective excuse to make broader changes for a longer period of time than the other excuses. So that's what I think the OP meant by "complete breakdown" rather than a partial breakdown. I don't think, myself, that it really is a complete breakdown but I do think it's the worst yet, affecting the most people at a time when technology has increased the stakes.
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.
Justin fought against SOPA, for privacy, and has published his rationale for every vote that he makes.
Publishing his rationale for every vote is awesome. I looked on his web site, though, and it appears that he only publishes them on Facebook. That probably works well for many, but it makes it hard to search and isn't nearly as nice as if he'd just put the same information on his web site. Kudos to him for explaining his votes, though.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Police Unions do tend to favour gun control. Especially in cities/states that already have strong gun control laws. Note that Chicago has some of the strongest gun control laws in the country, and a rather higher than average murder & crime rate.
Do keep in mind that "enable" is NOT the same as "require": As in 'countries that don't allow guns REQUIRE cops to not hae to carry guns". Yeah, some places with no guns, cops don't carry. Other places with no guns, cops still get to use them. And much more safely, since noone will be shooting back. Do remember that the USSR (and Nazi Germany) had strong gun control laws, yet in neither place did they have "kinder, gentler" police (as a rather extreme example).
For that matter, seems to me Rwanda did the gun control thing just before they did the "massacre those other guys" thing....
Personally, I'm in favour of strict gun control laws. For the police. They don't need to carry a handgun, a shotgun & an assault rifle (latter two in the car, and a REAL assault rifle, not just the scary looking guns that the Left keeps trying to convince us are the same thing). When the cops disarm, I'll think about it. Probably won't get rid of my guns, but I'll at least think about it....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"