Board
Search
Member List
Calendar
Red Dot Arms
Help
08-09-2015, 02:53 PM
(08-09-2015, 06:54 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: rwhite, it is not done everyday for everyone. A phone company should demand a warrant before giving up your records without your consent (now mind you in many 'privacy agreements' in force when you become a customer apply). Giving 'blanket access' to all your records without a warrant in not Constitutional. If the government can access all records, films, videos, on you without a warrant privacy disappears. If government wants to spy or investigate every single citizen without a warrant Liberty is dying. Rand Paul is correct, and Chris Christie is dead wrong.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutional as you have no expectation of privacy. This goes back to when to make a phone call you had to call the operator switch board. The expectation of privacy doesn't come into play until your call actually connects to the party you are calling. The 1979 ruling in the case of Smith v. Maryland conveyed that same idea to numerical dialing conveyed through the phone company's computers. This is why no warrant is needed to look at who was called but is needed to listen in to phone calls. It also needs to be pointed out that you don't legally own your phone records, the phone company does. Even if a warrant would be needed to seize them, the phone company can still willingly surrender them without a warrant. The recent Supreme Court decision on the NSA's spying on phone calls, emails, and texts specifically stated that the government cannot store phone numbers called using their own surveillance and not that they can't look at the phone company's data. Like it or not Rand Paul was wrong when it comes to looking at phone records.
(08-09-2015, 06:54 AM)BelieveIn308 Wrote: rwhite, it is not done everyday for everyone. A phone company should demand a warrant before giving up your records without your consent (now mind you in many 'privacy agreements' in force when you become a customer apply). Giving 'blanket access' to all your records without a warrant in not Constitutional. If the government can access all records, films, videos, on you without a warrant privacy disappears. If government wants to spy or investigate every single citizen without a warrant Liberty is dying. Rand Paul is correct, and Chris Christie is dead wrong.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutional as you have no expectation of privacy. This goes back to when to make a phone call you had to call the operator switch board. The expectation of privacy doesn't come into play until your call actually connects to the party you are calling. The 1979 ruling in the case of Smith v. Maryland conveyed that same idea to numerical dialing conveyed through the phone company's computers. This is why no warrant is needed to look at who was called but is needed to listen in to phone calls. It also needs to be pointed out that you don't legally own your phone records, the phone company does. Even if a warrant would be needed to seize them, the phone company can still willingly surrender them without a warrant. The recent Supreme Court decision on the NSA's spying on phone calls, emails, and texts specifically stated that the government cannot store phone numbers called using their own surveillance and not that they can't look at the phone company's data. Like it or not Rand Paul was wrong when it comes to looking at phone records.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutional as you have no expectation of privacy. This goes back to when to make a phone call you had to call the operator switch board. The expectation of privacy doesn't come into play until your call actually connects to the party you are calling. The 1979 ruling in the case of Smith v. Maryland conveyed that same idea to numerical dialing conveyed through the phone company's computers. This is why no warrant is needed to look at who was called but is needed to listen in to phone calls. It also needs to be pointed out that you don't legally own your phone records, the phone company does. Even if a warrant would be needed to seize them, the phone company can still willingly surrender them without a warrant. The recent Supreme Court decision on the NSA's spying on phone calls, emails, and texts specifically stated that the government cannot store phone numbers called using their own surveillance and not that they can't look at the phone company's data. Like it or not Rand Paul was wrong when it comes to looking at phone records.