Death penalty

[Thrill]

The Fourth doesn't give an out here. Straight up, be within reason or have a warrant. There's no "unless this." Your citizens are your citizens. Defend their rights. The PATRIOT Act and PRISM violate freedom in order to protect it. That makes absolutely no sense.

If storing every piece of encrypted data they come across is "within due cause and reason," I don't know what my world considers "reasonable."

Erm, what part of the fourth says "this or that"? It says:

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.

.

Abridged Fourth Amendment:
"The right... to be secure in their... papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

Now we can clearly see: I have a right to be "secure in [my] effects against unreasonable searches." The government can't make excuses. If their search is unreasonable, it's unconstitutional. That easy.

I see two points - "Don't search people without probable cause" and "Don't issue any warrants that, under oath, describe the place to be search and the items to be seized". The definition of seize is "take away" - storing data is not "taking away" data, thus it is arguably not seizure.

It's not seizure in the typical sense, but it is searching, no? I am protected against seizures and searches.

What part of that says "you must have a warrant to search" and "you can't search people with reasonable cause in an emergency"?

it doesn't say that. It says you must have a warrant or probable cause. In the case of the PATRIOT Act, the government is allowed to search without either.

 

[Whispered]

Now you must decide whether collecting information is "search" or "seizure" or neither.

Search is pretty crystal clear - it's searching. Is collecting data really searching? No. When you actually look through the data, or attempt to use/access it, that's searching.



By the way, the USA PATRIOT Act does not authorize any and all searches - it specifically requires due reason and probable cause before it may be invoked for a short-term shortcut surveillance order or warrant, or a search without a warrant if one is in the process of being acquired and it is expected that the search is necessary and reasonable.

The PATRIOT Act would not, say, authorize me to go and search someone's house just because I heard someone call them a terrorist. I would have to be able to - even if afterwords - prove to a judge that I had reason to believe there was some form of danger that will be prevented that requires the search to be performed now, and not wait the normal time for a warrant.

Any issues with the interpretation of that by the judges are not faults of the law - it's faults of judges themselves not following the law.

 

[Thrill]

Now you must decide whether collecting information is "search" or "seizure" or neither.

Search is pretty crystal clear - it's searching. Is collecting data really searching? No. When you actually look through the data, or attempt to use/access it, that's searching.

Given that this is a political atmosphere that defines music downloads as "theft," I think "data collection" could be construed as "seizure." It's a bit stretchy, but not unreasonable. Gray area defaults to people's rights over government's powers. That's what small government is all about, no?

By the way, the USA PATRIOT Act does not authorize any and all searches - it specifically requires due reason and probable cause before it may be invoked for a short-term shortcut surveillance order or warrant, or a search without a warrant if one is in the process of being acquired and it is expected that the search is necessary and reasonable.

The PATRIOT Act would not, say, authorize me to go and search someone's house just because I heard someone call them a terrorist. I would have to be able to - even if afterwords - prove to a judge that I had reason to believe there was some form of danger that will be prevented that requires the search to be performed now, and not wait the normal time for a warrant.

Any issues with the interpretation of that by the judges are not faults of the law - it's faults of judges themselves not following the law.

Maybe I confused the PATRIOT Act with some NSA policies. Regardless, some kind of shady surveillance is going on.

 

[Whispered]

Now you must decide whether collecting information is "search" or "seizure" or neither.

Search is pretty crystal clear - it's searching. Is collecting data really searching? No. When you actually look through the data, or attempt to use/access it, that's searching.

Given that this is a political atmosphere that defines music downloads as "theft," I think "data collection" could be construed as "seizure." It's a bit stretchy, but not unreasonable. Gray area defaults to people's rights over government's powers. That's what small government is all about, no?

By the way, the USA PATRIOT Act does not authorize any and all searches - it specifically requires due reason and probable cause before it may be invoked for a short-term shortcut surveillance order or warrant, or a search without a warrant if one is in the process of being acquired and it is expected that the search is necessary and reasonable.

The PATRIOT Act would not, say, authorize me to go and search someone's house just because I heard someone call them a terrorist. I would have to be able to - even if afterwords - prove to a judge that I had reason to believe there was some form of danger that will be prevented that requires the search to be performed now, and not wait the normal time for a warrant.

Any issues with the interpretation of that by the judges are not faults of the law - it's faults of judges themselves not following the law.

Maybe I confused the PATRIOT Act with some NSA policies. Regardless, some kind of shady surveillance is going on.

I mean, taking something that usually costs money and acquiring it for free without the permission of the person authorized to sell it to you is kinda theft.. is stealing a bagel from a morning restaurant theft?

Furthermore, seizure is the taking of things - not the collection of things that imposes no harm on anyone. If I seize your car, house, keys, computer, it imposes upon you - you no longer have that item.

When I visit a website, am I seizing the data that's on their servers? No, I'm simply accessing it and storing it locally for a period of time - if I actually hack in and somehow delete the data so that my copy is the only one out there - that's seizure.

I think we both agree that the NSA surveillance is a large part unconstitutional - it's been known they look at the data without warrants or cause to fish for things they can use (illegally use) to prosecute someone. But the collection of the data isn't in and of itself illegal, searching, or seizing anything. It'd be like me coming to your house blindfolded (don't ask how, this is a crappy example), taking pictures of things, then locking them up in a safe until I get a warrant to search them. That's not really seizure, or searching.

---

Thought of something else: This website and software stores our IP data (as well as other data). That's not seizure or searching. If a staff member (with just cause and reason) accesses the data with the intent of looking at it (or looks at it after an inadvertent access), then it becomes searching and is bound (if US laws and constitution applied to the administration of a private website) to either a warrant or probable, reasonable cause.

 

[The_Jedi_Master]

The constitution is full of "the government will". The bill of rights is full of "the government will not do these things, non-all-inclusive, in its attempt to do what it must". Considering the 10th amendment of the constitution states

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As in that amendment - the powers not given to the government by the constitution are not the government's power. I would like you to explain how anything really that liberals want falls under the constitution.

I would like you to explain how the violation of the Constitution by liberals in any way negates the violation of the Constitution by "conservatives." You keep drawing in this irrelevant argument, but you're not solving the issue at hand, which is the fact that "small government conservatives" repeatedly engage in government overreaches which are explicitly denied in the Constitution.

At least the liberals have the Elastic Clause at their disposal. The Constitution outright states that the government cannot search people without warrants, but Republicans insist on doing so regardless.

The constitution says the government will "provide for the common defense" and they will not impose "cruel and unusual" punishments. Although, is it really cruel to murder someone who heartlessly murdered tens, hundreds of persons? Is that really cruel? It's not unusual - death (or "an eye for an eye") has been a punishment for centuries - unusual would be forcing them to parade around the streets naked painting themselves with vomit or something odd like that.

Courts have been wrong before. It's absolutely cruel to inject potassium iodide in a person to later find out that he was innocent.

But you appear to be against the death penalty in all cases. So, would you say it's cruel to put a convicted murderer with irrefutable evidence such as crystal clear camera evidence, being caught in the act, DNA evidence, etc to death?

Furthermore, I'm confused how liberals can use this:

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

to make laws that are either not "necessary", not "proper", or not with the purpose of "carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". I'd love to know what "foregoing Power" is being carried out by welfare, by Obamacare, etc.

However, it is very easily argued that, barring any ability to eliminate the possibility of incidentally picking up other communications/transmissions, things such as wire-tapping, surveillance (via camera or otherwise), and the other terms of the PATRIOT Act are necessary and proper to provide for the common defense - especially in the wake of a terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 persons.

Furthermore, being able to conduct surveillance, especially in the immediate days following a terrorist attack, is extremely vital to the common defense - and you can't deny that.

tl;dr - at least "the common defense" is a "foregoing Power" that most (if not all) of the PATRIOT Act was (if not is still) "necessary and proper" to "carry into Execution". I'm waiting for an explanation on what foregoing Power Obamacare is necessary and properly required to carry into Execution. Same with welfare.


---

I'll also point out that nowhere does the Constitution itself require any form of warrant to search or seize property. It only states the instances in which an actual warrant is issued, and prohibits "unreasonable" searches. Thus, it can be inferred that reasonable searches without a warrant and with due cause and reason are perfectly constitutional.

Now you must decide whether collecting information is "search" or "seizure" or neither.

Search is pretty crystal clear - it's searching. Is collecting data really searching? No. When you actually look through the data, or attempt to use/access it, that's searching.

Given that this is a political atmosphere that defines music downloads as "theft," I think "data collection" could be construed as "seizure." It's a bit stretchy, but not unreasonable. Gray area defaults to people's rights over government's powers. That's what small government is all about, no?

By the way, the USA PATRIOT Act does not authorize any and all searches - it specifically requires due reason and probable cause before it may be invoked for a short-term shortcut surveillance order or warrant, or a search without a warrant if one is in the process of being acquired and it is expected that the search is necessary and reasonable.

The PATRIOT Act would not, say, authorize me to go and search someone's house just because I heard someone call them a terrorist. I would have to be able to - even if afterwords - prove to a judge that I had reason to believe there was some form of danger that will be prevented that requires the search to be performed now, and not wait the normal time for a warrant.

Any issues with the interpretation of that by the judges are not faults of the law - it's faults of judges themselves not following the law.

Maybe I confused the PATRIOT Act with some NSA policies. Regardless, some kind of shady surveillance is going on.

I mean, taking something that usually costs money and acquiring it for free without the permission of the person authorized to sell it to you is kinda theft.. is stealing a bagel from a morning restaurant theft?

Furthermore, seizure is the taking of things - not the collection of things that imposes no harm on anyone. If I seize your car, house, keys, computer, it imposes upon you - you no longer have that item.

When I visit a website, am I seizing the data that's on their servers? No, I'm simply accessing it and storing it locally for a period of time - if I actually hack in and somehow delete the data so that my copy is the only one out there - that's seizure.

I think we both agree that the NSA surveillance is a large part unconstitutional - it's been known they look at the data without warrants or cause to fish for things they can use (illegally use) to prosecute someone. But the collection of the data isn't in and of itself illegal, searching, or seizing anything. It'd be like me coming to your house blindfolded (don't ask how, this is a crappy example), taking pictures of things, then locking them up in a safe until I get a warrant to search them. That's not really seizure, or searching.

---

Thought of something else: This website and software stores our IP data (as well as other data). That's not seizure or searching. If a staff member (with just cause and reason) accesses the data with the intent of looking at it (or looks at it after an inadvertent access), then it becomes searching and is bound (if US laws and constitution applied to the administration of a private website) to either a warrant or probable, reasonable cause.

There's implied permission to access the data. It's not a valid comparison. I've never given any consent to the NSA to store my e-mails encrypted or not. I've not done anything to invoke probably cause by simple e-mailing someone outside the country.

----------

The United States constitution does not apply to private entities. by the way.

 

[Whispered]

The constitution is full of "the government will". The bill of rights is full of "the government will not do these things, non-all-inclusive, in its attempt to do what it must". Considering the 10th amendment of the constitution states

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As in that amendment - the powers not given to the government by the constitution are not the government's power. I would like you to explain how anything really that liberals want falls under the constitution.

I would like you to explain how the violation of the Constitution by liberals in any way negates the violation of the Constitution by "conservatives." You keep drawing in this irrelevant argument, but you're not solving the issue at hand, which is the fact that "small government conservatives" repeatedly engage in government overreaches which are explicitly denied in the Constitution.

At least the liberals have the Elastic Clause at their disposal. The Constitution outright states that the government cannot search people without warrants, but Republicans insist on doing so regardless.

The constitution says the government will "provide for the common defense" and they will not impose "cruel and unusual" punishments. Although, is it really cruel to murder someone who heartlessly murdered tens, hundreds of persons? Is that really cruel? It's not unusual - death (or "an eye for an eye") has been a punishment for centuries - unusual would be forcing them to parade around the streets naked painting themselves with vomit or something odd like that.

Courts have been wrong before. It's absolutely cruel to inject potassium iodide in a person to later find out that he was innocent.

But you appear to be against the death penalty in all cases. So, would you say it's cruel to put a convicted murderer with irrefutable evidence such as crystal clear camera evidence, being caught in the act, DNA evidence, etc to death?

Furthermore, I'm confused how liberals can use this:

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

to make laws that are either not "necessary", not "proper", or not with the purpose of "carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". I'd love to know what "foregoing Power" is being carried out by welfare, by Obamacare, etc.

However, it is very easily argued that, barring any ability to eliminate the possibility of incidentally picking up other communications/transmissions, things such as wire-tapping, surveillance (via camera or otherwise), and the other terms of the PATRIOT Act are necessary and proper to provide for the common defense - especially in the wake of a terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 persons.

Furthermore, being able to conduct surveillance, especially in the immediate days following a terrorist attack, is extremely vital to the common defense - and you can't deny that.

tl;dr - at least "the common defense" is a "foregoing Power" that most (if not all) of the PATRIOT Act was (if not is still) "necessary and proper" to "carry into Execution". I'm waiting for an explanation on what foregoing Power Obamacare is necessary and properly required to carry into Execution. Same with welfare.


---

I'll also point out that nowhere does the Constitution itself require any form of warrant to search or seize property. It only states the instances in which an actual warrant is issued, and prohibits "unreasonable" searches. Thus, it can be inferred that reasonable searches without a warrant and with due cause and reason are perfectly constitutional.

Now you must decide whether collecting information is "search" or "seizure" or neither.

Search is pretty crystal clear - it's searching. Is collecting data really searching? No. When you actually look through the data, or attempt to use/access it, that's searching.

Given that this is a political atmosphere that defines music downloads as "theft," I think "data collection" could be construed as "seizure." It's a bit stretchy, but not unreasonable. Gray area defaults to people's rights over government's powers. That's what small government is all about, no?

By the way, the USA PATRIOT Act does not authorize any and all searches - it specifically requires due reason and probable cause before it may be invoked for a short-term shortcut surveillance order or warrant, or a search without a warrant if one is in the process of being acquired and it is expected that the search is necessary and reasonable.

The PATRIOT Act would not, say, authorize me to go and search someone's house just because I heard someone call them a terrorist. I would have to be able to - even if afterwords - prove to a judge that I had reason to believe there was some form of danger that will be prevented that requires the search to be performed now, and not wait the normal time for a warrant.

Any issues with the interpretation of that by the judges are not faults of the law - it's faults of judges themselves not following the law.

Maybe I confused the PATRIOT Act with some NSA policies. Regardless, some kind of shady surveillance is going on.

I mean, taking something that usually costs money and acquiring it for free without the permission of the person authorized to sell it to you is kinda theft.. is stealing a bagel from a morning restaurant theft?

Furthermore, seizure is the taking of things - not the collection of things that imposes no harm on anyone. If I seize your car, house, keys, computer, it imposes upon you - you no longer have that item.

When I visit a website, am I seizing the data that's on their servers? No, I'm simply accessing it and storing it locally for a period of time - if I actually hack in and somehow delete the data so that my copy is the only one out there - that's seizure.

I think we both agree that the NSA surveillance is a large part unconstitutional - it's been known they look at the data without warrants or cause to fish for things they can use (illegally use) to prosecute someone. But the collection of the data isn't in and of itself illegal, searching, or seizing anything. It'd be like me coming to your house blindfolded (don't ask how, this is a crappy example), taking pictures of things, then locking them up in a safe until I get a warrant to search them. That's not really seizure, or searching.

---

Thought of something else: This website and software stores our IP data (as well as other data). That's not seizure or searching. If a staff member (with just cause and reason) accesses the data with the intent of looking at it (or looks at it after an inadvertent access), then it becomes searching and is bound (if US laws and constitution applied to the administration of a private website) to either a warrant or probable, reasonable cause.

There's implied permission to access the data. It's not a valid comparison. I've never given any consent to the NSA to store my e-mails encrypted or not. I've not done anything to invoke probably cause by simple e-mailing someone outside the country.

And that's why I said that the NSA surveillance is largely unconstitutional. And there's no implied permission to access the data, in fact the constitution specifically requires there be cause or warrant for it to be accessed. They're breaking that, they're breaking the law, it should be stopped. We agree on that.

However, storing data you publicly transmit over the internet isn't really a search or seizure until they look at it. You should have no expectation of privacy whenever you're connected to the internet, and the constitution does not say that they can't "hold" things - just that they can't search or seize without probable cause or warrant.

OT: We both typo probable as probably - i have to do ctrl-f and replace it :P

 

[The_Jedi_Master]

The constitution is full of "the government will". The bill of rights is full of "the government will not do these things, non-all-inclusive, in its attempt to do what it must". Considering the 10th amendment of the constitution states

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As in that amendment - the powers not given to the government by the constitution are not the government's power. I would like you to explain how anything really that liberals want falls under the constitution.

I would like you to explain how the violation of the Constitution by liberals in any way negates the violation of the Constitution by "conservatives." You keep drawing in this irrelevant argument, but you're not solving the issue at hand, which is the fact that "small government conservatives" repeatedly engage in government overreaches which are explicitly denied in the Constitution.

At least the liberals have the Elastic Clause at their disposal. The Constitution outright states that the government cannot search people without warrants, but Republicans insist on doing so regardless.

The constitution says the government will "provide for the common defense" and they will not impose "cruel and unusual" punishments. Although, is it really cruel to murder someone who heartlessly murdered tens, hundreds of persons? Is that really cruel? It's not unusual - death (or "an eye for an eye") has been a punishment for centuries - unusual would be forcing them to parade around the streets naked painting themselves with vomit or something odd like that.

Courts have been wrong before. It's absolutely cruel to inject potassium iodide in a person to later find out that he was innocent.

But you appear to be against the death penalty in all cases. So, would you say it's cruel to put a convicted murderer with irrefutable evidence such as crystal clear camera evidence, being caught in the act, DNA evidence, etc to death?

Furthermore, I'm confused how liberals can use this:

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

to make laws that are either not "necessary", not "proper", or not with the purpose of "carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". I'd love to know what "foregoing Power" is being carried out by welfare, by Obamacare, etc.

However, it is very easily argued that, barring any ability to eliminate the possibility of incidentally picking up other communications/transmissions, things such as wire-tapping, surveillance (via camera or otherwise), and the other terms of the PATRIOT Act are necessary and proper to provide for the common defense - especially in the wake of a terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 persons.

Furthermore, being able to conduct surveillance, especially in the immediate days following a terrorist attack, is extremely vital to the common defense - and you can't deny that.

tl;dr - at least "the common defense" is a "foregoing Power" that most (if not all) of the PATRIOT Act was (if not is still) "necessary and proper" to "carry into Execution". I'm waiting for an explanation on what foregoing Power Obamacare is necessary and properly required to carry into Execution. Same with welfare.


---

I'll also point out that nowhere does the Constitution itself require any form of warrant to search or seize property. It only states the instances in which an actual warrant is issued, and prohibits "unreasonable" searches. Thus, it can be inferred that reasonable searches without a warrant and with due cause and reason are perfectly constitutional.

Now you must decide whether collecting information is "search" or "seizure" or neither.

Search is pretty crystal clear - it's searching. Is collecting data really searching? No. When you actually look through the data, or attempt to use/access it, that's searching.

Given that this is a political atmosphere that defines music downloads as "theft," I think "data collection" could be construed as "seizure." It's a bit stretchy, but not unreasonable. Gray area defaults to people's rights over government's powers. That's what small government is all about, no?

By the way, the USA PATRIOT Act does not authorize any and all searches - it specifically requires due reason and probable cause before it may be invoked for a short-term shortcut surveillance order or warrant, or a search without a warrant if one is in the process of being acquired and it is expected that the search is necessary and reasonable.

The PATRIOT Act would not, say, authorize me to go and search someone's house just because I heard someone call them a terrorist. I would have to be able to - even if afterwords - prove to a judge that I had reason to believe there was some form of danger that will be prevented that requires the search to be performed now, and not wait the normal time for a warrant.

Any issues with the interpretation of that by the judges are not faults of the law - it's faults of judges themselves not following the law.

Maybe I confused the PATRIOT Act with some NSA policies. Regardless, some kind of shady surveillance is going on.

I mean, taking something that usually costs money and acquiring it for free without the permission of the person authorized to sell it to you is kinda theft.. is stealing a bagel from a morning restaurant theft?

Furthermore, seizure is the taking of things - not the collection of things that imposes no harm on anyone. If I seize your car, house, keys, computer, it imposes upon you - you no longer have that item.

When I visit a website, am I seizing the data that's on their servers? No, I'm simply accessing it and storing it locally for a period of time - if I actually hack in and somehow delete the data so that my copy is the only one out there - that's seizure.

I think we both agree that the NSA surveillance is a large part unconstitutional - it's been known they look at the data without warrants or cause to fish for things they can use (illegally use) to prosecute someone. But the collection of the data isn't in and of itself illegal, searching, or seizing anything. It'd be like me coming to your house blindfolded (don't ask how, this is a crappy example), taking pictures of things, then locking them up in a safe until I get a warrant to search them. That's not really seizure, or searching.

---

Thought of something else: This website and software stores our IP data (as well as other data). That's not seizure or searching. If a staff member (with just cause and reason) accesses the data with the intent of looking at it (or looks at it after an inadvertent access), then it becomes searching and is bound (if US laws and constitution applied to the administration of a private website) to either a warrant or probable, reasonable cause.

There's implied permission to access the data. It's not a valid comparison. I've never given any consent to the NSA to store my e-mails encrypted or not. I've not done anything to invoke probably cause by simple e-mailing someone outside the country.

And that's why I said that the NSA surveillance is largely unconstitutional. And there's no implied permission to access the data, in fact the constitution specifically requires there be cause or warrant for it to be accessed. They're breaking that, they're breaking the law, it should be stopped. We agree on that.

However, storing data you publicly transmit over the internet isn't really a search or seizure until they look at it. You should have no expectation of privacy whenever you're connected to the internet, and the constitution does not say that they can't "hold" things - just that they can't search or seize without probable cause or warrant.

OT: We both typo probable as probably - i have to do ctrl-f and replace it :P

It is. The contents of that e-mail encrypted or not, are my intellectual property. The unauthorized copying that is theft.

 

[Whispered]

The constitution is full of "the government will". The bill of rights is full of "the government will not do these things, non-all-inclusive, in its attempt to do what it must". Considering the 10th amendment of the constitution states

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As in that amendment - the powers not given to the government by the constitution are not the government's power. I would like you to explain how anything really that liberals want falls under the constitution.

I would like you to explain how the violation of the Constitution by liberals in any way negates the violation of the Constitution by "conservatives." You keep drawing in this irrelevant argument, but you're not solving the issue at hand, which is the fact that "small government conservatives" repeatedly engage in government overreaches which are explicitly denied in the Constitution.

At least the liberals have the Elastic Clause at their disposal. The Constitution outright states that the government cannot search people without warrants, but Republicans insist on doing so regardless.

The constitution says the government will "provide for the common defense" and they will not impose "cruel and unusual" punishments. Although, is it really cruel to murder someone who heartlessly murdered tens, hundreds of persons? Is that really cruel? It's not unusual - death (or "an eye for an eye") has been a punishment for centuries - unusual would be forcing them to parade around the streets naked painting themselves with vomit or something odd like that.

Courts have been wrong before. It's absolutely cruel to inject potassium iodide in a person to later find out that he was innocent.

But you appear to be against the death penalty in all cases. So, would you say it's cruel to put a convicted murderer with irrefutable evidence such as crystal clear camera evidence, being caught in the act, DNA evidence, etc to death?

Furthermore, I'm confused how liberals can use this:

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

to make laws that are either not "necessary", not "proper", or not with the purpose of "carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". I'd love to know what "foregoing Power" is being carried out by welfare, by Obamacare, etc.

However, it is very easily argued that, barring any ability to eliminate the possibility of incidentally picking up other communications/transmissions, things such as wire-tapping, surveillance (via camera or otherwise), and the other terms of the PATRIOT Act are necessary and proper to provide for the common defense - especially in the wake of a terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 persons.

Furthermore, being able to conduct surveillance, especially in the immediate days following a terrorist attack, is extremely vital to the common defense - and you can't deny that.

tl;dr - at least "the common defense" is a "foregoing Power" that most (if not all) of the PATRIOT Act was (if not is still) "necessary and proper" to "carry into Execution". I'm waiting for an explanation on what foregoing Power Obamacare is necessary and properly required to carry into Execution. Same with welfare.


---

I'll also point out that nowhere does the Constitution itself require any form of warrant to search or seize property. It only states the instances in which an actual warrant is issued, and prohibits "unreasonable" searches. Thus, it can be inferred that reasonable searches without a warrant and with due cause and reason are perfectly constitutional.

Now you must decide whether collecting information is "search" or "seizure" or neither.

Search is pretty crystal clear - it's searching. Is collecting data really searching? No. When you actually look through the data, or attempt to use/access it, that's searching.

Given that this is a political atmosphere that defines music downloads as "theft," I think "data collection" could be construed as "seizure." It's a bit stretchy, but not unreasonable. Gray area defaults to people's rights over government's powers. That's what small government is all about, no?

By the way, the USA PATRIOT Act does not authorize any and all searches - it specifically requires due reason and probable cause before it may be invoked for a short-term shortcut surveillance order or warrant, or a search without a warrant if one is in the process of being acquired and it is expected that the search is necessary and reasonable.

The PATRIOT Act would not, say, authorize me to go and search someone's house just because I heard someone call them a terrorist. I would have to be able to - even if afterwords - prove to a judge that I had reason to believe there was some form of danger that will be prevented that requires the search to be performed now, and not wait the normal time for a warrant.

Any issues with the interpretation of that by the judges are not faults of the law - it's faults of judges themselves not following the law.

Maybe I confused the PATRIOT Act with some NSA policies. Regardless, some kind of shady surveillance is going on.

I mean, taking something that usually costs money and acquiring it for free without the permission of the person authorized to sell it to you is kinda theft.. is stealing a bagel from a morning restaurant theft?

Furthermore, seizure is the taking of things - not the collection of things that imposes no harm on anyone. If I seize your car, house, keys, computer, it imposes upon you - you no longer have that item.

When I visit a website, am I seizing the data that's on their servers? No, I'm simply accessing it and storing it locally for a period of time - if I actually hack in and somehow delete the data so that my copy is the only one out there - that's seizure.

I think we both agree that the NSA surveillance is a large part unconstitutional - it's been known they look at the data without warrants or cause to fish for things they can use (illegally use) to prosecute someone. But the collection of the data isn't in and of itself illegal, searching, or seizing anything. It'd be like me coming to your house blindfolded (don't ask how, this is a crappy example), taking pictures of things, then locking them up in a safe until I get a warrant to search them. That's not really seizure, or searching.

---

Thought of something else: This website and software stores our IP data (as well as other data). That's not seizure or searching. If a staff member (with just cause and reason) accesses the data with the intent of looking at it (or looks at it after an inadvertent access), then it becomes searching and is bound (if US laws and constitution applied to the administration of a private website) to either a warrant or probable, reasonable cause.

There's implied permission to access the data. It's not a valid comparison. I've never given any consent to the NSA to store my e-mails encrypted or not. I've not done anything to invoke probably cause by simple e-mailing someone outside the country.

And that's why I said that the NSA surveillance is largely unconstitutional. And there's no implied permission to access the data, in fact the constitution specifically requires there be cause or warrant for it to be accessed. They're breaking that, they're breaking the law, it should be stopped. We agree on that.

However, storing data you publicly transmit over the internet isn't really a search or seizure until they look at it. You should have no expectation of privacy whenever you're connected to the internet, and the constitution does not say that they can't "hold" things - just that they can't search or seize without probable cause or warrant.

OT: We both typo probable as probably - i have to do ctrl-f and replace it :P

It is. The contents of that e-mail encrypted or not, are my intellectual property. The unauthorized copying that is theft.

No, copying for government intelligence use falls under fair use. As such, it's not theft, and that part of it is perfectly legal.

 

[The_Jedi_Master]

The constitution is full of "the government will". The bill of rights is full of "the government will not do these things, non-all-inclusive, in its attempt to do what it must". Considering the 10th amendment of the constitution states

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As in that amendment - the powers not given to the government by the constitution are not the government's power. I would like you to explain how anything really that liberals want falls under the constitution.

I would like you to explain how the violation of the Constitution by liberals in any way negates the violation of the Constitution by "conservatives." You keep drawing in this irrelevant argument, but you're not solving the issue at hand, which is the fact that "small government conservatives" repeatedly engage in government overreaches which are explicitly denied in the Constitution.

At least the liberals have the Elastic Clause at their disposal. The Constitution outright states that the government cannot search people without warrants, but Republicans insist on doing so regardless.

The constitution says the government will "provide for the common defense" and they will not impose "cruel and unusual" punishments. Although, is it really cruel to murder someone who heartlessly murdered tens, hundreds of persons? Is that really cruel? It's not unusual - death (or "an eye for an eye") has been a punishment for centuries - unusual would be forcing them to parade around the streets naked painting themselves with vomit or something odd like that.

Courts have been wrong before. It's absolutely cruel to inject potassium iodide in a person to later find out that he was innocent.

But you appear to be against the death penalty in all cases. So, would you say it's cruel to put a convicted murderer with irrefutable evidence such as crystal clear camera evidence, being caught in the act, DNA evidence, etc to death?

Furthermore, I'm confused how liberals can use this:

The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

to make laws that are either not "necessary", not "proper", or not with the purpose of "carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". I'd love to know what "foregoing Power" is being carried out by welfare, by Obamacare, etc.

However, it is very easily argued that, barring any ability to eliminate the possibility of incidentally picking up other communications/transmissions, things such as wire-tapping, surveillance (via camera or otherwise), and the other terms of the PATRIOT Act are necessary and proper to provide for the common defense - especially in the wake of a terrorist attack that killed almost 3,000 persons.

Furthermore, being able to conduct surveillance, especially in the immediate days following a terrorist attack, is extremely vital to the common defense - and you can't deny that.

tl;dr - at least "the common defense" is a "foregoing Power" that most (if not all) of the PATRIOT Act was (if not is still) "necessary and proper" to "carry into Execution". I'm waiting for an explanation on what foregoing Power Obamacare is necessary and properly required to carry into Execution. Same with welfare.


---

I'll also point out that nowhere does the Constitution itself require any form of warrant to search or seize property. It only states the instances in which an actual warrant is issued, and prohibits "unreasonable" searches. Thus, it can be inferred that reasonable searches without a warrant and with due cause and reason are perfectly constitutional.

Now you must decide whether collecting information is "search" or "seizure" or neither.

Search is pretty crystal clear - it's searching. Is collecting data really searching? No. When you actually look through the data, or attempt to use/access it, that's searching.

Given that this is a political atmosphere that defines music downloads as "theft," I think "data collection" could be construed as "seizure." It's a bit stretchy, but not unreasonable. Gray area defaults to people's rights over government's powers. That's what small government is all about, no?

By the way, the USA PATRIOT Act does not authorize any and all searches - it specifically requires due reason and probable cause before it may be invoked for a short-term shortcut surveillance order or warrant, or a search without a warrant if one is in the process of being acquired and it is expected that the search is necessary and reasonable.

The PATRIOT Act would not, say, authorize me to go and search someone's house just because I heard someone call them a terrorist. I would have to be able to - even if afterwords - prove to a judge that I had reason to believe there was some form of danger that will be prevented that requires the search to be performed now, and not wait the normal time for a warrant.

Any issues with the interpretation of that by the judges are not faults of the law - it's faults of judges themselves not following the law.

Maybe I confused the PATRIOT Act with some NSA policies. Regardless, some kind of shady surveillance is going on.

I mean, taking something that usually costs money and acquiring it for free without the permission of the person authorized to sell it to you is kinda theft.. is stealing a bagel from a morning restaurant theft?

Furthermore, seizure is the taking of things - not the collection of things that imposes no harm on anyone. If I seize your car, house, keys, computer, it imposes upon you - you no longer have that item.

When I visit a website, am I seizing the data that's on their servers? No, I'm simply accessing it and storing it locally for a period of time - if I actually hack in and somehow delete the data so that my copy is the only one out there - that's seizure.

I think we both agree that the NSA surveillance is a large part unconstitutional - it's been known they look at the data without warrants or cause to fish for things they can use (illegally use) to prosecute someone. But the collection of the data isn't in and of itself illegal, searching, or seizing anything. It'd be like me coming to your house blindfolded (don't ask how, this is a crappy example), taking pictures of things, then locking them up in a safe until I get a warrant to search them. That's not really seizure, or searching.

---

Thought of something else: This website and software stores our IP data (as well as other data). That's not seizure or searching. If a staff member (with just cause and reason) accesses the data with the intent of looking at it (or looks at it after an inadvertent access), then it becomes searching and is bound (if US laws and constitution applied to the administration of a private website) to either a warrant or probable, reasonable cause.

There's implied permission to access the data. It's not a valid comparison. I've never given any consent to the NSA to store my e-mails encrypted or not. I've not done anything to invoke probably cause by simple e-mailing someone outside the country.

And that's why I said that the NSA surveillance is largely unconstitutional. And there's no implied permission to access the data, in fact the constitution specifically requires there be cause or warrant for it to be accessed. They're breaking that, they're breaking the law, it should be stopped. We agree on that.

However, storing data you publicly transmit over the internet isn't really a search or seizure until they look at it. You should have no expectation of privacy whenever you're connected to the internet, and the constitution does not say that they can't "hold" things - just that they can't search or seize without probable cause or warrant.

OT: We both typo probable as probably - i have to do ctrl-f and replace it :P

It is. The contents of that e-mail encrypted or not, are my intellectual property. The unauthorized copying that is theft.

No, copying for government intelligence use falls under fair use. As such, it's not theft, and that part of it is perfectly legal.

Citation?

 

[Thrill]

No, copying for government intelligence use falls under fair use. As such, it's not theft, and that part of it is perfectly legal.

So if someone were to download all of the Star Wars movies, or the Elder Scrolls games, or The Beatles' albums, it wouldn't be "theft" until they actually watched, played, or listened to those? They're just making a copy without the consent of the property holder, the exact way the government can store my data without my permission.

 

[Whispered]

No, copying for government intelligence use falls under fair use. As such, it's not theft, and that part of it is perfectly legal.

So if someone were to download all of the Star Wars movies, or the Elder Scrolls games, or The Beatles' albums, it wouldn't be "theft" until they actually watched, played, or listened to those? They're just making a copy.

On top of IP addresses no longer being valid evidence, this thread is developing quite the defense for pirates.

No, all of your things require money to access - they're private property that people have a right to sell. Can you sell your cell phone records? Can you sell your e-mail records?

---

Do you have a citation for your e-mail (METADATA, not the actual content) and cell phone metadata being your IP?

 

[Thrill]

No, copying for government intelligence use falls under fair use. As such, it's not theft, and that part of it is perfectly legal.

So if someone were to download all of the Star Wars movies, or the Elder Scrolls games, or The Beatles' albums, it wouldn't be "theft" until they actually watched, played, or listened to those? They're just making a copy.

On top of IP addresses no longer being valid evidence, this thread is developing quite the defense for pirates.

No, all of your things require money to access - they're private property that people have a right to sell. Can you sell your cell phone records? Can you sell your e-mail records?

---

Do you have a citation for your e-mail (METADATA, not the actual content) and cell phone metadata being your IP?

I have a right to sell my emails. People publish books of their trollish email conversations on a regular basis.

Granted, I don't do anything interesting to the point where any individual would want to pay for the right to read my emails, but I certainly have a right to call them my personal property. I can't sell my right to free speech, but it doesn't mean that it isn't mine, and it certainly doesn't mean that the government has access to it.

To my knowledge, they were collecting all encrypted materials they could come across and store.

 

[Whispered]

No, copying for government intelligence use falls under fair use. As such, it's not theft, and that part of it is perfectly legal.

So if someone were to download all of the Star Wars movies, or the Elder Scrolls games, or The Beatles' albums, it wouldn't be "theft" until they actually watched, played, or listened to those? They're just making a copy.

On top of IP addresses no longer being valid evidence, this thread is developing quite the defense for pirates.

No, all of your things require money to access - they're private property that people have a right to sell. Can you sell your cell phone records? Can you sell your e-mail records?

---

Do you have a citation for your e-mail (METADATA, not the actual content) and cell phone metadata being your IP?

I have a right to sell my emails. People publish books of their trollish email conversations on a regular basis.

Granted, I don't do anything interesting to the point where any individual would want to pay for the right to read my emails, but I certainly have a right to call them my personal property. I can't sell my right to free speech, but it doesn't mean that it isn't mine, and it certainly doesn't mean that the government has access to it.

Remember that I'm talking about the metadata - not the actual records.

First of all, would you fault Google for storing your emails? Even after read? Even after deleted by the other person (and you)? I assume you wouldn't. So why do you fault the government for it (assuming they only used them in the extreme emergency cases where it was extremely necessary)?

I think we both agree that the way the programs are run is ********. But the idea itself may not be.

 

[Thrill]

No, copying for government intelligence use falls under fair use. As such, it's not theft, and that part of it is perfectly legal.

So if someone were to download all of the Star Wars movies, or the Elder Scrolls games, or The Beatles' albums, it wouldn't be "theft" until they actually watched, played, or listened to those? They're just making a copy.

On top of IP addresses no longer being valid evidence, this thread is developing quite the defense for pirates.

No, all of your things require money to access - they're private property that people have a right to sell. Can you sell your cell phone records? Can you sell your e-mail records?

---

Do you have a citation for your e-mail (METADATA, not the actual content) and cell phone metadata being your IP?

I have a right to sell my emails. People publish books of their trollish email conversations on a regular basis.

Granted, I don't do anything interesting to the point where any individual would want to pay for the right to read my emails, but I certainly have a right to call them my personal property. I can't sell my right to free speech, but it doesn't mean that it isn't mine, and it certainly doesn't mean that the government has access to it.

Remember that I'm talking about the metadata - not the actual records.

First of all, would you fault Google for storing your emails? Even after read? Even after deleted by the other person (and you)? I assume you wouldn't. So why do you fault the government for it (assuming they only used them in the extreme emergency cases where it was extremely necessary)?

I think we both agree that the way the programs are run is ********. But the idea itself may not be.

I don't fault Google for storing my emails in the same way that you don't fault health insurance companies for providing you with healthcare. I fault the government for storing my emails in the same way you fault the government for interfering in the healthcare market.

This is a dangerous slippery slope. if the government wants metadata, then it must be useful leverage. The government should not have this kind of leverage on its people unless it is targeted at specific people against whom they have evidence.

 

[The_Jedi_Master]

No, copying for government intelligence use falls under fair use. As such, it's not theft, and that part of it is perfectly legal.

So if someone were to download all of the Star Wars movies, or the Elder Scrolls games, or The Beatles' albums, it wouldn't be "theft" until they actually watched, played, or listened to those? They're just making a copy.

On top of IP addresses no longer being valid evidence, this thread is developing quite the defense for pirates.

No, all of your things require money to access - they're private property that people have a right to sell. Can you sell your cell phone records? Can you sell your e-mail records?

---

Do you have a citation for your e-mail (METADATA, not the actual content) and cell phone metadata being your IP?

Actually, I'm selling the rights to my phone calls to be used in a film adaption. It doesn't matter though. Any thing I've ever written is my intellectual property. In the case of my e-mail, the only people who I've offered any form of access are the receiver and Google for use in targeted ads.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/evidence_that_t.html
Yea, meta data only. Sure.
http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u-s-phone-calls/
Definitely.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-text-messages-daily-untargeted-global-sweep
Absolutely no collection of the contents.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston

 

[Whispered]

No, copying for government intelligence use falls under fair use. As such, it's not theft, and that part of it is perfectly legal.

So if someone were to download all of the Star Wars movies, or the Elder Scrolls games, or The Beatles' albums, it wouldn't be "theft" until they actually watched, played, or listened to those? They're just making a copy.

On top of IP addresses no longer being valid evidence, this thread is developing quite the defense for pirates.

No, all of your things require money to access - they're private property that people have a right to sell. Can you sell your cell phone records? Can you sell your e-mail records?

---

Do you have a citation for your e-mail (METADATA, not the actual content) and cell phone metadata being your IP?

I have a right to sell my emails. People publish books of their trollish email conversations on a regular basis.

Granted, I don't do anything interesting to the point where any individual would want to pay for the right to read my emails, but I certainly have a right to call them my personal property. I can't sell my right to free speech, but it doesn't mean that it isn't mine, and it certainly doesn't mean that the government has access to it.

Remember that I'm talking about the metadata - not the actual records.

First of all, would you fault Google for storing your emails? Even after read? Even after deleted by the other person (and you)? I assume you wouldn't. So why do you fault the government for it (assuming they only used them in the extreme emergency cases where it was extremely necessary)?

I think we both agree that the way the programs are run is ********. But the idea itself may not be.

I don't fault Google for storing my emails in the same way that you don't fault health insurance companies for providing you with healthcare. I fault the government for storing my emails in the same way you fault the government for interfering in the healthcare market.

This is a dangerous slippery slope. if the government wants metadata, then it must be useful leverage. The government should not have this kind of leverage on its people unless it is targeted at specific people against whom they have evidence.

Yet, if we don't store the data, it gets deleted. Take the case of cell phones. If an unidentified phone attempts to connect to a network with an invalid SIM (for that network), then it will be rejected. However, a record of that attempt will be stored. Usually only about 2 hours or so. What if that data could have solved a mystery? You can't deny it - knowing a suspect's SIM card info would be a simple subpoena or request to the telephone companies, and then checking the data would be a simple match.

Why does the government want the metadata? In an ideal world, it's keeping it solely for the purpose of it not being lost in the case it could help a case. In all honesty, it's used too much. But that does not mean do away with keeping the data.

----------

No, copying for government intelligence use falls under fair use. As such, it's not theft, and that part of it is perfectly legal.

So if someone were to download all of the Star Wars movies, or the Elder Scrolls games, or The Beatles' albums, it wouldn't be "theft" until they actually watched, played, or listened to those? They're just making a copy.

On top of IP addresses no longer being valid evidence, this thread is developing quite the defense for pirates.

No, all of your things require money to access - they're private property that people have a right to sell. Can you sell your cell phone records? Can you sell your e-mail records?

---

Do you have a citation for your e-mail (METADATA, not the actual content) and cell phone metadata being your IP?

Actually, I'm selling the rights to my phone calls to be used in a film adaption. It doesn't matter though. Any thing I've ever written is my intellectual property. In the case of my e-mail, the only people who I've offered any form of access are the receiver and Google for use in targeted ads.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/evidence_that_t.html
Yea, meta data only. Sure.
http://www.cnet.com/news/nsa-spying-flap-extends-to-contents-of-u-s-phone-calls/
Definitely.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...s-text-messages-daily-untargeted-global-sweep
Absolutely no collection of the contents.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/04/telephone-calls-recorded-fbi-boston

One guy's blog. He appears to be what you'd call a "worst case" scenario person (or as the derogatory term has it, "conspiracy theorist").

---

The Guardian is not really the most reliable source either.. If you had, say, the NYT (even though they're wrong quite often too) reporting it it'd be more credible.

---

Regardless, assuming it's true, I've already said that we're discussing the metadata, and that we agree that contents should need further scrutiny to be able to look at - However, is storing the contents really bad? If you're doing nothing wrong, you should have no reason to wish they not be stored - they'll never be looked at if you're doing nothing wrong, so..

(again, this is all idealworld scenarios)

 

[Mama Umbridge]

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

 

[Chicknoodle]

IF it ever costs less than life in prison i'd be for it but coupled with how many mistakes are made in the judicial system it seems like a bad idea nevertheless.

 

[Goddess]

I'd like to say I'm against it just because I don't think man should have control over someone else's life in the matter of life or death ever, but there are some circumstances where I'd condone it. Which is where my personal beliefs conflict with one another.

If someone committed a massacre, or serial homicides and show no sign of remorse and are even to the very end happy they did it, I'm all for the death penalty even though at the same time I feel conflicted because I'm against what some would call "playing god". It's a tricky subject because I see both sides of the coin and agree with both sides to an extent as well.

There's also been some cases where an innocent man was put to death. There's so many circumstances that play in to this subject. It's tricky.