Today we fight against mass survailence

[Anton]

Wait, so first you were arguing that you're not allowed privacy because it isn't in the Constitution, and then you say it doesn't mean anything when it turns out it does? Okay.

There's a reason why lawyers and judges are paid quite a bit.

 

[Xiahou Dun]

Wait, so first you were arguing that you're not allowed privacy because it isn't in the Constitution, and then you say it doesn't mean anything when it turns out it does? Okay.

The Constitution "doesn't mean anything" without the Supreme Court (thanks to judicial review), and the Supreme Court has molded the "right to privacy", not the Constitution.

That's what I think Shoey meant, anyway.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Uh, the Fourth Amendment?

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.

Search and seizure =/= right to privacy, although the two can overlap.

To me, the right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is a right to privacy. Allowing for reasonable searches is an acceptable breach of this right to privacy.

Collecting metadata on everyone without probable cause is a different story.

 

[Stargatedalek]

corporations already spy on people
unless you have something to hide why should you care if the government does the same?

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Because information is power, and I don't really want the government to have that much power over its citizens. Sure, I have nothing to fear... from a just government. But the government is not always just, and the more power they have the more potential for abuse of power.

I don't have anything wrong with warranted searches and seizures though, because that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is the government being able to know someone's location, who they've been talking to, etc. without a warrant.

Here's a demonstration of what they can do with your data. And this is without a warrant.

 

[Specific Neptune]

Why is this crap even a real thing if it obviously violates the Constitution?

>still believing in the constitution

the government has violated so much of the constitution, it literally makes no difference anymore. Some laws on that thing need to be violated for the safety of the country, though. Others just need to be left alone

 

[Kong Rong]

Because information is power, and I don't really want the government to have that much power over its citizens. Sure, I have nothing to fear... from a just government. But the government is not always just, and the more power they have the more potential for abuse of power.

I don't have anything wrong with warranted searches and seizures though, because that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is the government being able to know someone's location, who they've been talking to, etc. without a warrant.

Here's a demonstration of what they can do with your data. And this is without a warrant.

and it's all legal and it will all be upheld by the United State Supreme court

 

[Stargatedalek]

but you wouldn't even know unless they used it against you
at which point they could just get a warrant

 

[Xiahou Dun]

Uh, the Fourth Amendment?

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.

Search and seizure =/= right to privacy, although the two can overlap.

To me, the right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" is a right to privacy. Allowing for reasonable searches is an acceptable breach of this right to privacy.

It really depends on what the Supreme Court says, ultimately, but if you put it in context, the clause is talking about protecting people from "unreasonable searches and seizures" without a warrant, thus giving them the right to be secure in their property.

 

[Dr. Javelin]

Because information is power, and I don't really want the government to have that much power over its citizens. Sure, I have nothing to fear... from a just government. But the government is not always just, and the more power they have the more potential for abuse of power.

I don't have anything wrong with warranted searches and seizures though, because that's reasonable. What's not reasonable is the government being able to know someone's location, who they've been talking to, etc. without a warrant.

Here's a demonstration of what they can do with your data. And this is without a warrant.

and it's all legal and it will all be upheld by the United State Supreme court

which is dumb. i think we should elect supreme court justices just like any other government official