Greg White said:
SexyGarfield said:
Greg White said:
SexyGarfield said:
I think you mean various members of government have said that at times through either judicial ruling or legislative passing of conflicting laws. Find me some constitutional text that says that and I will eat my hat. Life liberty and pursuit of happiness are unalienable according to the declaration of independence (not the constitution), property never made the cut much to John Locke's contention. I'll bring it back to my original question though, do you really want to live in a state where your rights and law turn to vapor at the whim of (not even elected) government officials?
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges ... of citizens ... nor ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
That's from the Bill of Rights, but the way.
By due process of law, the state can deprive you of your rights.
The 14th amendment is not a part of the bill of rights but I stand corrected on the constitution bit. I think your understanding of that text is flawed though, they are referring to individual states not
THE state. Do you believe due process has been given to every single united states citizen that has had their data (the modern equivalent of papers) seized and private contracts violated?
Honestly, yes.
The NSA operates under the same guidelines for intelligence gathering as Military Intelligence, they just have different tools for it.
For an agent to look at anyone's data they have to have cause for an investigation. Anything that's made publicly available(this includes anything posted on social media sites)doesn't require special permission, beyond being assigned the case, to investigate. Going into the actual data stored in their servers does still require a warrant and is much more less intrusive than just confiscating a suspect's computer.
I should technically point out that aspects of the program were intended to directly target non-American citizens. Any monitoring of American citizens was largely the result of their interaction with non-American suspects, And as a result they were considered potentially suspects. I mention this only because the Bill of Rights could be said not to apply to anyone outside the U.S., Given they are not recognized as applicable. In fact, the administration has been very specific in insisting that the program was indeed intended only to target non-American citizens or those not currently residing within the United States, Which does lend credence to the idea that the protection of their privacy or user data could be somewhat looser. The irony here is that if in their relatively unmoderated examination of non-American data where to pick up something even remotely suspicious, that would indeed count as just cause to similarly poke at American data; There was a suggestion that such investigations would operate on a three hop query system, meaning that they would be able to examine the data of the suspect, anyone the suspect communicated with, anyone those people communicated with, and finally everyone that all of those people communicated with.
Another difficulty lies in the idea of due process of law, and the programs original classified status. Insistence that one must first Prove the validity of an investigatory request to supervising courts bears a little less weight when those courts are indeed part of FISA as well; The capability to therefore have a program that adheres the letter of the law without necessarily adhering to its spirit Means that an organization could essentially rubberstamp its activities on a regular basis. Because under ideal circumstances, (In other words if Snowden hadn't released those files,) there is no risk of having to answer to the people, and hey, just in case right? Random person number 6043 might actually be a terrorist, so why not just approve this poorly justified data request? Oversight only extends to higher members of government, and of course this is all wrapped in the shroud of national security. The fewer public eyes are on a program, the less likely you are to find a dissenting opinion or contradictory viewpoint, and such contradiction is the very thing that gives a system balance. In fact, in the case of seeking approval, there is no dissenting voice, as you only have one person insisting that they be given clearance, with nobody to argue for the defendant, as it were.