Latest Diablo 3 News
DiabloWiki Updates
Support the site! Become a Diablo: IncGamers PAL - Remove ads and more!

Court rules wiretaps can continue

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Sir EvilFreeSmeg, Oct 4, 2006.

  1. Sir EvilFreeSmeg

    Sir EvilFreeSmeg Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,434
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Court rules wiretaps can continue

    Outstanding! That traitor judge just got the rug pulled out from under her feet. It's good to know some judges get it
     
  2. Stompwampa

    Stompwampa IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    466
    last I checked there was no constitutional right to privacy...so why are people so up in arms about this?
     
  3. Sir EvilFreeSmeg

    Sir EvilFreeSmeg Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,434
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because the left is still suffering from dual cases of PEST and CPWS.
    Post Election Stress Trauma
    Chronic Panties in a Wad Syndrome (props to maccool)

    and that whole Bush = Hitler and BLCD crap
     
  4. SaroDarksbane

    SaroDarksbane IncGamers Site Pal

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2003
    Messages:
    8,563
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    467
    I'm going to ask an honest question, and I hope I can get an honest answer.

    Do you really believe it a traitorous act to stand up for your interpretation of the constitution?
     
  5. Star Dust

    Star Dust IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Well, somebody's 4th amendment rights are going to get violated by this law. I wouldn't be surprised if it's already happened. It practically invites abuse.
     
  6. Stompwampa

    Stompwampa IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    466
    anyone have a link to the actual wording of the law?

    I'm curious how broad it is...becuase if it is as broad as people seem to think it is, then it would have been deemd unconstitutional by now...
     
  7. Dondrei

    Dondrei IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    36,855
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    467
    As I recall, the exact terms of the judgement passed down by the first judge left a lot to be desired.

    Well, we'll see how high this goes.

    LOL.
     
  8. Stompwampa

    Stompwampa IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    466

    Why LOL???
     
  9. maccool

    maccool IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2003
    Messages:
    3,904
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Because you apparently failed civics. Unless your passport says something other than United States of America.


    Read slowly. Sound out the words if you have to. Then look up the definition of 'privacy'. Then look up case law on what has been determined 'unreasonable'. Then realize why a foreigner is laughing at you.
     
  10. ModeratelyConfused

    ModeratelyConfused Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    3,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Great, I guess I'll have to stop talking to all my friends about building that uranium enriching plant in my backyard now.
     
  11. Stompwampa

    Stompwampa IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    466
    My apologies. I should re-word my argument slightly:
    There is no direct right to privacy in the Constitution. Any privacy laws derived from it are all implied through a series of amendments.
    The 4th Amendment in and of itself doesn't say anything about privacy. It says we have a right to be secure, which could mean any number of things under any number of interpretations. Also, "unreasonable" and "probable" are highly suggestive to interpretation as well.

    Yes, a right to privacy has been implied through various court cases. However, that only creates a legally protected privelage. Any one of these case precedents could be overturned if challenged by a new case. However, given our current Supreme court justices, I doubt any common law privacy rulings would be reversed.

    The main landmark case that ruled an implied Constitutional privace was Grisowld v. Connecticut (1965). The courts ruled 7-2 that (in this case) there was a right to marital privace. But only through a penumbra of the first nine amendments. No amendment on it's own says anything about a right to privacy. The closest would be the 4th amendment, but even that takes a stretch on interpretation to stand on it's on ground as the single amendment to "gaurentee a right to privacy."
    In Griswold v. Conn. the majority ruling included references to several of the amendments in order to find basis for the ruling. Naturally, Hugo Black and Potter Stewart dissented, because they were purests when it came to constitutional interpretation. They argued that if it wasn't there, then you couldn't do it. Every major privacy case has come under extreme scrutiny on the basis that there is no constitutional ground for a right to privacy. Privacy has always been a heated topic in the legal world, as it should be.
    I think that there should have been some right to privacy written in to the constitution, but the fact of the matter is that there is none. So far, we only have an implied right, which basically boils down to a legall protected privelage that could be overturned at any time.

    In relation to the wire tapping, I don't see how this violate any of the privacy law that has been passed over the years. Privacy law can be broken down into four segments:

    1. Appropriation of name or likeness for trade purposes
    2. Intrusion up an individuals solitude.
    3. Publication of private information about an individual.
    4. Publishing material that puts an individual in a false light.

    The only one of these four that could even come close to the Bush wire tapping is number 2. But even then, I think it is a stretched. If you are using a phone line, where does a right to privacy come into play? You are paying for a service from a 3rd party company to allow you to connect to the national phone system. No where does it gaurentee that your calls are private, at least not that I've seen. One would assume an implied privacy on those phone calls, but the lines they're using are not thier own, and we didn't sign a contract with the phone company that guarentees that our calls are all private. At least I've never signed a contract with a phone company.
    And then with today's modern era of cell phones, the implied privacy becomes ever blurrier because of the mobility. If the government taps into a converstation that is happening while you are in a public place, you have no right to claim that the conversation was private, when half of the conversation could be overheard by anyone within earshot.
    I also find it hard to believe the the government would just start randomly tapping peoples' phones just for the sake of it. As far as I know this law only allows the warrantless tapping of phones, but it doesn't mean that probable cause need not be proven either. If a case were to go to court, the burden of proof would still be in the hands of the government.

    (Main Source: Mass Media Law 2007/2008, Don R. Pember and Clay Calvert, Mcgraw-Hill Companies, Copyright 2006)


    And for the record, I've gotten A's in all my civics/government/law classes.
     
  12. Yaboosh

    Yaboosh IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Yes, many of us have taken undergrad con law classes.



    I am curious as to why you think normal cops require a warrant to perform wire taps on citizens if you believe that it is not protected by the 4th Amendment.

    I would also take a look at Katz if I were you, since spouting about this stuff makes you sound silly when there is so much caselaw supporting, ummm, the opposite of what you say.
     
  13. Stompwampa

    Stompwampa IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Katz? Anything specific?

    I'm not trying to argue that there are not privacy laws in existance. I'm saying that there is no Constitutional gaurentee to privacy. Only an implied one.
     
  14. Star Dust

    Star Dust IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    To be "secure" against "unwarranted searches and seizures" is to have a sort of privacy. Although...

    It's not about "privacy" as much as it is about the rights of the government, i.e., the protections/liberties of the citizens.

    That's a good point, but wouldn't you agree that at least good reasons/probable cause be demanded up front to save some trouble and effort?

    Not necessary.
     
  15. Yaboosh

    Yaboosh IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    347
    Mmhmmm, just like there is no Constitutional guarantee to the application of the Bill of Rights to the States? You seem to be either misunderstanding or underestimating the concepts of case law and stare decisis.

    As for Katz, it is a Supreme Court case where a gambler was using a public payphone which was tapped without a warrant by the FBI. It was found that the 4th amendment protects people not places, and anywhere that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (on the phone, even in more public places than the home, etc.) you are protected from unreasonable intrusion.
     
  16. Stompwampa

    Stompwampa IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    466

    LOL. The post I replied to wasn't exactly candy apples and lollipops either.


    What do you mean specifically? Are you talking about the incorporation docrtine with the 14th and 5th amendments that means the states must also abide by the bill of rights? (mainly the first amendment)
     
  17. Yaboosh

    Yaboosh IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    347
    It isn't stated specifically in the 14th or 5th amendments that the Bill of Rights is applied to the states, it is through the systematic incorporation through various court decisions using the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment. In fact, a few amendments have yet to be incorporated (2nd, and like the 9th and 10th which are not really applicable to states anyway).

    Anyway, I was just using that as an example of the many rights that have been interpreted by the various decisions of the Supreme Court. You are more than welcome to call into question that role of the Supreme Court, but you have a bit of a task ahead of you.
     
  18. Stompwampa

    Stompwampa IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    466
    I'm afraid this discussion has become more complex than I intended.
    I'm not trying to make wild claims about the constitution. I was merely trying to defend my claim that there is no constitutional gaurentee to privacy, only an implied one.
    This is the case with much, if not most of constitutional law: Implication and incorporation. I think we can both agree on that. I'm not disagreeing with the Supreme Court decisions in the least. I'm happy with where they've taken us thus far.
    And yes, I do understand how case law works and how it establishes precidents of common law and stare decisis. I think we're both looking at the same issue from a slightly different angle, because we both seem to agree, at least from what I've read. If I'm not coming accross that way, I'm sorry. I'll try to clarify any specifics if needed :thumbsup:
     
  19. Yaboosh

    Yaboosh IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    347
    I understand what you are saying, but I disagree when you differentiate between "guaranteed rights" and "implied rights". Case law and stare decisis make these, essentially, the same thing.

    You are also using Common Law incorrectly. That is not a term that applies to the Supreme Court as far as I know, it is the style of law that was common to the UK and other European countries that relied solely on case law and customs for their laws, as opposed to formerly written and recorded laws.

    Though the case law of the Supreme Court could, I suppose, be compared to common law in its formation, it is still a fundamentally different animal.
     
  20. Stompwampa

    Stompwampa IncGamers Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    4,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    466
    Case law and common law seem to be the same thing, at least functionally, as far as I understand them at least. Common law still exists in the lower courts, I do know that, but it's based on case decisions for the most part.

    I guess the fact that a case law precident can be overturned by a new case that challenges the law tells me that it is not a gaurenteel. To me, a gaurentee is something that cannot and will not change, which is why I use the term implied, since it could possibly change. Highly doubtful, but possible.

    Well yea, that's the whole point of a warrant I guess. If this phone tapping law were passed under any other circumstances, it would be deemed unconstitutional in an instant. The fact the we're at war, and the government is allowed to restrict some of our freedoms/liberties in the name of protecting itself and its citizens. This gets into a clear and present danger philosophy, which I think was discussed briefly in a different thread. To put it simply, in times of war or when national security is at risk, the government is allowed to take certain measures in order to protect itself from the "very evil's it has set forth to prevent" if I remember the quote correctly.
     

Share This Page