Originally Posted By Donny Here is a Frontline Video I really found alarming. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/united-states-of-secrets/">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...secrets/</a>
Originally Posted By familyguy I expected to see government officials lifting up their shirts and flashing themselves while drunk.... May bad...moving on...
Originally Posted By SuperDry What do you think the solution is, both as far as policy goes and what voters should do?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Include electronic communications as "persons, houses, papers, and effects" under the Fourth Amendment, which they currently are not. Oh, and enforce the Fourth Amendment, which seems to be as relevant today as the Third.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I believe phone wiretapping has been subject to the rules of the 4th amendment, no? Phones are of course not mentioned in the 4th amendment, but I believe the courts quite sensibly "folded them in" there; hence the need to get a warrant or court order for a legal wiretap. I don't see why internet or other electronic communications shouldn't follow this precedent.
Originally Posted By Donny I have an expectation of privacy when talking on a phone to another person,I don't think the government should be listening to my conversations without a court order.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Nor do I. Both the Bush and Obama administrations insist they haven't been; they've been collecting "meta-data" only (i.e. they know I called my parent's house on Mother's Day but didn't listen in on the conversation.) To listen in you still need a court order, at least officially. It makes sense - they couldn't possibly listen in on everything and it would be a waste of time, resources, and overload them with useless crap that is just "noise," making it harder to distinguish the "signal." Of course, we know the Bush admin. bypassed the courts on at least several occasions, saying they couldn't wait for a court order. Ostensibly this was to listen in on known (or at least suspected) terrorists, but some of us at the time said they should still have to get a court order - which were granted something like 99+% of the time anyway - because if you didn't, you've set a precedent that's ripe for abuse. Maybe the average person need not worry (because our conversations would be a waste of time), but... might an administration listen in on political rivals, say? Might the Bushies listen in on Planned Parenthood, and the Obamaites on the NRA? Both claim they never abused it, but of course it's impossible to know.
