Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 11 Jun '13 18:18
    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



    Don't warrants have to be issued for each individual person? How can you have a mass probable cause?

    But who cares?
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    11 Jun '13 18:21
    Originally posted by Eladar
    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



    Don't ...[text shortened]... e issued for each individual person? How can you have a mass probable cause?

    But who cares?
    That's talking about physical searches.
  3. 11 Jun '13 18:23
    So you are saying that the US government has always had the right to snoop in your letters if you use the US postal system? The government has the right to open every letter and read them all? I didn't know that.
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    11 Jun '13 18:25
    Originally posted by Eladar
    So you are saying that the US government has always had the right to snoop in your letters if you use the US postal system? The government has the right to open every letter and read them all? I didn't know that.
    Government don't have rights. Snooping in your letters is a physical search. But I would not be surprised if there are intelligence agents implanted in the postal system.
  5. 11 Jun '13 18:32
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Government don't have rights. Snooping in your letters is a physical search. But I would not be surprised if there are intelligence agents implanted in the postal system.
    There is no difference between information printed on paper and information in electronic format.

    If there is a difference, then why is electronic format still copyrighted?
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    11 Jun '13 18:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    There is no difference between information printed on paper and information in electronic format.

    If there is a difference, then why is electronic format still copyrighted?
    Copyrights are legalities with no real physical existence. Natural rights, which the Constitution is based on, are physical. Don't beat people up. Don't take their stuff.

    It doesn't say that eavesdropping is banned because eavesdropping doesn't physically intrude on anyone else.

    EDIT - Does the Constitution mention copyrights? I don't remember that part.
  7. 11 Jun '13 18:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Copyrights are legalities with no real physical existence. Natural rights, which the Constitution is based on, are physical. Don't beat people up. Don't take their stuff.

    It doesn't say that eavesdropping is banned because eavesdropping doesn't physically intrude on anyone else.

    EDIT - Does the Constitution mention copyrights? I don't remember that part.
    I couldn't disagree more. The Amendments were written to protect people from the government. In Article 4, the Constitution protects citizens from a government that thinks it has the right to simply look into peoples' lives.

    Trying to argue that the government has the right to illegal search and sieze your information because the internet and telephones didn't exist at the time of the writing is a cop out. This line of reasoning is only used by people who believe that the government should have the right to mistreat people.

    The US is supposed to be different. The US is supposed to be a place where the common man is free from government intrusions.

    Having said that, I can definitely see why certain lefties would like to overlook this idea since they believe it is the government's job to dominate people and tell people what they have to believe. I can see why certain right wingers would like to overlook this because they believe in a government dominated society too (usually these guys believe in a US dominated world).
  8. 11 Jun '13 18:49
    https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/contactUs/faq.aspx

    4. Can Postal Inspectors open mail if they feel it may contain something illegal?
    First-Class letters and parcels are protected against search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and, as such, cannot be opened without a search warrant.


    There you have it, the 4th Amendment does not simply apply to your person. It applies to your correspondance too.
  9. 11 Jun '13 18:59
    The Fourth Amendment is very complicated. What is a search? What is a seizure? etc. etc.

    For those reasons, I defer to the Constitutional Law Professor himself:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ylVOdriEyA (the good stuff starts at 1:15 ish)
  10. 11 Jun '13 19:02
    Originally posted by MoneyManMike
    The Fourth Amendment is very complicated. What is a search? What is a seizure? etc. etc.

    For those reasons, I defer to the Constitutional Law Professor himself:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ylVOdriEyA (the good stuff starts at 1:15 ish)
    What is a search? What is a seizure? Seems like pretty simple stuff to me, but then that Constitution sure can get in the way. It only gets complicated when people want to rationalize why you don't have to follow it.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    11 Jun '13 19:07
    A search is where they kick in your door and go through your stuff and seizure is where they take your stuff.

    Mail is one of your possessions that was physically placed in possession of the postal system with the understanding that it's still yours and they are performing a service for you.

    E-mail has no physical existence. How can you search or sieze something that doesn't physically exist? Only through complex metaphorical interpretation of what those words mean. The Founders did not intend complex metaphorical interpretations of what they wrote. When they talking about searching, they meant the Redcoat Lobsterbacks aren't supposed to go through your wife's lingerie drawer.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Jun '13 19:18
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Copyrights are legalities with no real physical existence. Natural rights, which the Constitution is based on, are physical. Don't beat people up. Don't take their stuff.

    It doesn't say that eavesdropping is banned because eavesdropping doesn't physically intrude on anyone else.

    EDIT - Does the Constitution mention copyrights? I don't remember that part.
    They didn't use that word but in Article I, Section 8 under the powers of Congress:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    11 Jun '13 19:23
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    They didn't use that word but in Article I, Section 8 under the powers of Congress:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
    Oh, ok.

    But that's one of the Powers of Congress, not one of the inalienable rights of individuals. That's a legal right, not a natural right, and is not presented in the same way. It's something Congress can do, where search and seizure is something people are specifically prohibited from doing.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    11 Jun '13 19:31
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Oh, ok.

    But that's one of the Powers of Congress, not one of the inalienable rights of individuals. That's a legal right, not a natural right, and is not presented in the same way. It's something Congress can do, where search and seizure is something people are specifically prohibited from doing.
    True enough, but the point Eladar was making is that the right to privacy shouldn't be affected by what the medium is. Why should a letter written on parchment with a quill pen be protected, but the same exact words sent to the same exact person in an e-mail not be?
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    11 Jun '13 19:34
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    True enough, but the point Eladar was making is that the right to privacy shouldn't be affected by what the medium is. Why should a letter written on parchment with a quill pen be protected, but the same exact words sent to the same exact person in an e-mail not be?
    Because you can take the parchment away from the person who possesses it.

    Why should the exact same words verbally spoken to the exact same person not be protected like mail is?

    Is eavedropping the same thing as taking peoples' mail?