This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Friday, February 12, 2010

No Expectation of Privacy

Hey everybody, watch the liberals run and hide. This is the Patriot Act's big brother.

23 comments:

Liberal POV said...

HD

The ACLU has a proven track record of defending freedom.

Anonymous said...

HD: I read the full article here and I'm aware that cell-related E911 matters have been an issue for over 15 years, but I'm not clear on why you posted this link.

Are you trying to make a particular point here to which responses are either expected or desired? If so, please clarify.

Anonymous said...

To the Blogger:

I was just wondering since this is election year if occasionally you could post some local political news.

Honest Debate said...

Nonny,

I can't really say why I post any link other than it seems interesting to me. My "expected or desired" responses were of little consequence. I expected no liberals would comment, I was wrong.

I'll take the bait on my point. I disagree with many who thought the Patriot Act was overly invasive. I never saw it anyway. I think we should be able to monitor international phone calls between known terrorist...without immediately obtaining a warrant. I think we should debate whether data mining is the same as reading emails. We should have wire tap laws that reflect the latest technology instead of rotary phones.

We never had that debate. We had fear mongering, hateful accusations led by those that now are silent. In Obama's case it's a complete flip-flop.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, HD. And I have no reason to speak against any point in your second paragraph.

I don't see after-the-fact mining of cell tower usage records as any type of dangerous infringement of expected privacy as its info gathered and stored by providers with whom we, as citizens, voluntarily contract for services. If we truly want privacy in that context, we can refuse to use cell phones, turn them off or remove the battery and SIM card. But it's all voluntary.

To that extent, I don't see it being any different from the cops asking to look at security cameras surrounding a crime scene or checking the automatic bill scanning records at toll booths and bridges.

In one, they look for phone numbers that were operating in a particular area at a particular time. In another, they look for faces or license plates that were in a particular area at a particular time. And in the third, they look for registered UPC stickers on cars that passed through or near a particular area at a particular time. I really don't see the difference.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep Said:

"The ACLU has a proven track record of defending freedom."

Another uninformed, uneducated, un thought out statement by one of those who wants to see America fail. Can you name one instance when the ACLU has taken on a 2nd Amendment case? That's what I thought. The ACLU has even removed the 2nd Amendment from the list of amendments at its headquarters. Still want to promote the "proven track record" thing?

Many gun laws were set in place to prohibit freed slaves from owning guns or excercising freedom (Hard to burn a cross or hang someone when they are pointing a gun at you). These laws are still in place (look at what just happened in King, NC) and continue to plauge the black man due to skin color.

So I ask you (I have yet to recieve an answer from you on anything), if the ACLU has a proven track record then how come they have never defended the black man, or anyone for that matter, against violations of the 2nd Amendment?

Hard questions. Hard questions.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Dafney

PS I won, again

Johnny Rico said...

Nonymouse said:

"I don't see after-the-fact mining of cell tower usage records as any type of dangerous infringement of expected privacy as its info"

Could a more un-American, freedom shedding statement ever be made?

You are ridiclous! The more intrusion into the personal lives of Americans by the government, the less freedom we all have. At what point will you say enough is enough?

Since you don't mind intrusion into your personal life, then how about allowing the nanny state to install "security" cameras in your house and bedroom to make sure you don't engage in sodomy with your wife. After all, you don't have anything to hide do you? Since folks sometimes abuse their children, perhaps you wouldn't mind full surveillance of your entire house to ensure you don't give your kids a whipping.

Funny how the government tells us we really need this for the security of citizens, however we got along fine up until now without such encroachment. How in the world did you parents get along in the 1950s without having their non-existant cell phones tracked? That must have been a truly nasty time to live, don't you think?

So, Nonymouse Socialist, what you are saying is that you don't mind being thought of a a guilty person before doing something wrong?

You deserve not to be an American. Because of people like you all I can say is welcome to the surveillance state.

Idiot.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

PS How about GPS trackers in your car, a national ID card, and a microchip planted somewhere on your body (secret only to the government)? After all you have nothing to hide do you?

Betsy

Liberal POV said...

Johnny,

I don't know what happened in King.

Johnny Rico said...

Liberal Socialist Sheep POV said:

"I don't know what happened in King"

Duh. Duh. Doa duh do duh. Then get on the net and find out you dolt. Get your own link.

What is happening (funny how liberals never seem to know when civil rights are being taken away when those civil rights are ones they don't agree with) is that mandatory martial law was declared as a test bed to see how citizens would react to having their civil rights violated.

I noticed that you did not answer ANYTHING in my post. Is this because you have no answers or because you are embarassed at being on the losing and morally corrupt side of the arguement - or both?

LOL!!!

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

Blog Guy,

I had to post this one again in order to shove it down the already well worn throat of Liberal Socialist Sheep. Sheep is unable to answer even the most rudimentary of questions, and I just wanted him to feel as stupid as he acts. LOL!!!

Liberal Socialist Sheep Said:

"The ACLU has a proven track record of defending freedom."

Another uninformed, uneducated, un thought out statement by one of those who wants to see America fail. Can you name one instance when the ACLU has taken on a 2nd Amendment case? That's what I thought. The ACLU has even removed the 2nd Amendment from the list of amendments at its headquarters. Still want to promote the "proven track record" thing?

Many gun laws were set in place to prohibit freed slaves from owning guns or excercising freedom (Hard to burn a cross or hang someone when they are pointing a gun at you). These laws are still in place (look at what just happened in King, NC) and continue to plauge the black man due to skin color.

So I ask you (I have yet to recieve an answer from you on anything), if the ACLU has a proven track record then how come they have never defended the black man, or anyone for that matter, against violations of the 2nd Amendment?

Hard questions. Hard questions.

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico

Dafney

PS I won, again

Honest Debate said...

I'm with Nonny on this one. The genius of the Constitution is its timelessness. Technological advances are on a direct collision course with morality. As a nation, our "morality" is our Constitution. I'm not prepared to say the tracking of cell phones is peachy. I just don't know. I do think the fourth amendment will hold up just fine. Let the courts decide and let the people decide who selects the courts.

I'm not sure that enabling criminals (or terrorist) to exploit loopholes with gadgets will protect us. I don't know where the line is but I don't think having an honest debate about how to utilize tools that are available to us whether we use them or not constitutes "more intrusion into the personal lives of Americans by the government".

We damn sure better keep up with the enemy.

guy faulkes said...

I have to side with Rico. The principle of innocent until proven guilty (for citizens, not enemy combatants) is that it is better for the guilty to go free than the innocent to be wrongly punished. This is why there is protection from illegal search and seizure in the Bill of Rights. There is another famous saying that remains true. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. - Benjamin Franklin

oatz said...

Well Obama announced today that he will now officially hire a tweeter so Liberal POV and BikerBard can keep up with his every thought. Like Msnbc, CNN, CBS, NBC, are not enough twits that already follow and fawn over his every move.

Honest Debate said...

I agree with Guy's sentiment, it's the specific application here that I'm not sure about. I'm not advocating one way or the other but hasn't law enforcement always been able to subpoena phone records? Weren't all land lines locked to a specific and legally obtainable address? On all the hip detective shows they always try to keep the kidnapper on the line long enough to pinpoint his location, don't they? What's all that different here other than keeping up with the technology available to everybody?

I love Ben Franklin's quote but don't see any freedom that is being taken away. That's my beef with criticism of the Patriot Act. I have yet to have anyone tell me what freedoms are being taken away by which provision. There is never specificity only the claim that our freedoms are eroding. Maybe they are but I have yet to see it.

guy faulkes said...

The beef I have with the Patriot Act is that you are denied your rights to privacy. HD is correct that the government could always subpoena records, tap a phone line, etc. if the authorities could convince a judge of a reasonable articulable suspicion (probable cause) that a crime was being or had been committed and get him to issue what amounts to a search warrant.

The example of keeping a person on the line until the call could be traced indicates an instance in which one does not need a warrant as the call is being traced subject to what amounts to hot pursuit. If the call is traced due to an unwarranted wire tap, it is illegal. This condition of hot pursuit is not the same as the blanket acts perpetuated against many citizens for unspecified reasons (no search warrant) as allowed by the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act authorized, at least as far as I am concerned, unconstitutional warrant-less searches.

This principle is why many states require you be notified if the other party is recording the telephone call.

Johnny Rico said...

I notice Liberal Socialist Sheep POV and Nonny Mouse have nothing to say. They usually do quit after being batted around with truth and facts!!!

Johnny Rico

Johnny Rico said...

Any liberals out there looking for a good dose of freedom and truth on a Saturday night? LOL!!!!!

Honest Debate said...

I should sy that while I give great credit to "The Patriot Act" for keeping us safe that I am indeed concerned about our freedom. I'm not advocating big brother. I just have confidence in the Constitution holding up in the long run. I may well be putting too much faith in the courts. I thought McCain/Fiengold was unconstitutional and it took them eight years but they got it right and the first amendment survives.

My editorial comment, not directed at any one here, is that these are crucial decisions. At the time the issue was demagogued, villains were created and in my opinion the debate was not honest. Most of it came from the left. Now with Democrats in charge there are no calls to repeal the act. That proves the dishonesty.

Diane Feinstein was an exception who showed courage. I went looking for a quote I remember from her. I was spurred by Guy's statement, "...the blanket acts perpetuated against many citizens for unspecified reasons (no search warrant) as allowed by the Patriot Act". The ACLU was worried about blanket abuses and Feinstein looked into it. She found none. This Statement is from 2005, a lot may have changed but I have not heard of the abuses. I don't deny them, I just know that the opposing factions have not been honest. I'm skeptical and possibly ignorant.

When Feinstein made the above statement the Senate was still debating the FISA issue. I confess to not knowing the particulars that resulted. It has also been tested in the courts but I'm not sure how high it went. I am not sure of the exact status at this time.

I will reiterate my fascination with the lack of outrage towards Obama for embracing the Bush policy.

Here's what I think I know. The warrant-less wiretaps ("searches"?) are only on international calls where one party has known terrorist ties. That does not affect my freedom, it protects it.

guy faulkes said...

Here's what I think I know. The warrant-less wiretaps ("searches"?) are only on international calls where one party has known terrorist ties. That does not affect my freedom, it protects it. - HD

I do not believe the wiretaps are limited in this manner, even though they are supposed to be. I also believe that even if they are limited now, they will not remain that way. The government grows by positive feedback. It always wants more power to run an individual's life, (Take, for instance, the betrayal by the Republicans when they became big government liberal lite.) In my opinion the Patriot Act was a loss. The aggressive interrogation of captured terrorists is much more effective.

The Bill of Rights has the most important function in the Constitution when it comes to keeping our freedoms. They should never be watered down.

Honest Debate said...

"I do not believe the wiretaps are limited in this manner, even though they are supposed to be. I also believe that even if they are limited now, they will not remain that way." -Guy Faulkes

All bets are off if we can't trust our government.

The "slippery slope" argument is valid though not a given.

I don't consider the bill of rights to have been watered down, but that's only my opinion. I respect yours.

guy faulkes said...

How can anyone trust our government when it is still trying to pass "health care" reform over the will of the people? Eternal vigilance is required to keep government working from the people up instead of from the bureaucrats down.

Honest Debate said...

Guy,

Your question is loaded and expected. It's also the most important one.

In terms of the FISA laws, your mistrust may be completely well placed. That said, I still think it is a weak rebuttal until the mistrust is evidenced. One could find fault with every single law by saying they don't trust the government to implement it legally.

Do I trust the people running the government now? No.

Do I trust the people to choose better politicians? Yes, I still do but I'm getting shaky.

Do I trust our system of government? Absolutely.

The checks and balances, the separation of powers and the bill of rights gives power to the people. I agree completely with the need for "eternal vigilance". That's the point, we have the power and the system to right wrongs. The people of Iran are eternally vigilant, it does them no good.

Obama may still be trying to pass health care reform but it's dead and we killed it.

Johnny Rico said...

Where you at Liberal Socialist Sheep? I had the blog controller dude let me post something twice just so you could have more time to read it. And what did you do? You ran away. Tough questions plauge lemmings such as yourself don't they?

LOL

Your ole pal

Johnny Rico