tagged w/ fourth amendment
-
-
-
Sirota at Salon:
"In this brave new world of invasive technology, one of the easiest way to understand the relevance of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is to understand it through the prism of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Essentially, the Fifth Amendment’s notion that you cannot be “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against oneself” is a declaration that self-incriminating information in your mind is privileged, and that government efforts to get that information is, in fact, an “unreasonable search and seizure.” Put another way, these constitutional protections say the government cannot get a search warrant for your brain, nor can it hold you in contempt of court for refusing to disclose any self-incriminating information in your cortex.
..."
What say you, citizens of Current forums?
There's a case http://www.zdnet.com/blog/identity/passwords-tangled-in-fifth-amendment/131 where the state wants to force someone to basically testify against themselves by turning over their passwords. Is that data "papers" or is it self? Papers most likely, but the passwords are not papers, they are in the accused's head. Can you force what is in the head? Is that forcing testifying against self?
This slippery slope goes further. There is technology to pretty much make people testify against themselves via monitoring brain activity. The technology is only going to get better at invading thoughts but laws protecting rights have not kept pace. Where's the line?Sirota at Salon:
"In this brave new world of invasive technology, one of the... more
-
-
-
Regarding Rand Paul's opposition to the Patriot Act he said, "I am told that because I believe a Judge should sign a warrant I am in favor of terrorists having weapons. If one argues that Judges should sign warrants before they go into the house of an alleged murderer are you in favor of murder?".
Watch this amazing speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zr939QII_Dc&feature=player_embeddedRegarding Rand Paul's opposition to the Patriot Act he said, "I am told that... more
-
-
Our descent into a police state is complete, as evidenced by rulings by the Indiana and U.S. Supreme Courts which, last week, effectively and finally abolished the 4th Amendment.
No longer are American citizens “secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” thanks to the two rulings affirming police authority to bash down your door and enter your home without a warrant. Resisting such an incursion is now a crime. If it weren’t obvious before that we live in a fascist system under guise of Democracy, surely, it must be now.
In Indiana, the Supreme Court ruled 3-2 “that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling affirmed that officers can kick down a door if they smell marijuana or hear noises indicative of the destruction of evidence. (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, writing, “Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.”) The fact that the door they kicked in was not the door their suspect had entered was irrelevant to the court.
Of course, we told you a couple of weeks ago about the case of Maryanne Godboldo, who had a Detroit Police SWAT team crash into her home and remove her daughter because Godboldo made the perfectly reasonable and rational choice to determine what medication her daughter should take.
And we’ve previously told you about the assault on the 4th Amendment by the Department of Homeland Security through the porn show/gropefest at the airports and, just as egregious, the home peepshow enabling the Z Backscatter Van™ that is now rolling on American streets.
But the court rulings are among the first to affirm the police state. And they open us up to a system where the police have carte blanche to do as they please.
Think this is an overreaction? Tell it to the citizens of Newton County, Ind., whose sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., told the Mike Church radio show on Thursday that random house-to-house searches are now possible because of the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling.
“(H)e emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house (sic) checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal,” according to a posting on Church’s website. By Thursday afternoon there was a Facebook page calling for Hartman’s removal from office.
The Founders are surely weeping for an America they no longer recognize.
Our country became great and prosperous because its citizens were allowed to own property. The Founders subscribed to the theory of John Locke that “if (a person) be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to no body, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power?”
The elites understand this as well. That is why there is an assault on property rights, like in the ruling in Kelo v. The City of New London. It’s why a system based on property taxes is so egregious, because the State forces you to pay for the right to own your own property and can take it away at the force of a gun if, through some financial hardship or error, you don’t pay the tax in a timely manner.
The fascist elites in government are winning. We have become the despotism of an oligarchy, which Thomas Jefferson warned about when he wrote: “It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
We have told you before of the folly of expecting any of the ruling class to do anything or make any laws or rulings that would deny them more power. The President, members of Congress, the bureaucrats who occupy the offices of government, the justices, judges, lawyers, accountants and officers of the court system are employees of and for government. Their desire is to accumulate more power for government and more power and prestige for themselves. It is a desire that knows no party affiliation.
John Adams wrote: “… because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
That is where we are. We as a nation have rejected God and spat upon his principles. We have put in power people who see themselves as gods — elitists who think they know more than we and who think they know better than we how we should live our lives. We’ve allowed them to dictate what kind of cars we drive, what kind of light bulbs we can use, how much water our toilets flush, what foods we can eat, what doctors we see, what drugs we can — or must — take and what harmful chemicals can be placed in our water. And then we sat back as the oligarchy banned any and every mention of God in schools and public places.
We have rejected the teachings of our fathers. We have turned our backs on liberty and accepted the perceived safety net of tyranny. We slept while the Constitution burned.
The 1 percent in government controls the 99 percent. Of those 99 percent, 49.5 percent are perfectly content to be controlled as long as the “free” money comes their way. The remaining 49.5 percent is divided among those who are so unaware that they are unaware they are unaware, those who are aware but don’t know what to do, and those who know what’s coming and have been preparing.
Those who are aware but don’t know what to do scream at the top of their lungs that things are wrong. They don’t know exactly what things are wrong, or why, just that they are.
They have been blinded by the 1 percent, which controls through gross deception. They are being stolen from and lied to. They are being herded like sheep to the slaughter, and the last vestige of hope in the court system has betrayed them.
Failing regimes respond in their death throes by engaging in perpetual wars, debasing their currency and clamping down on the freedoms of their people. As the power elites try to hold on to their last vestiges of control, they enslave their subjects through the tyranny of a police state.
We live in a country that once threw off the shackles of tyranny. Our Founders chose not to tolerate a police state that allowed armed soldiers of the crown to enter homes at will, ransack, pillage and abuse. They understood such practices violated hundreds of years of law that established that a man’s home was his castle and not subject to invasion by the regime.
Full Article: http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/freedom-concerns/supreme-courts-affirm-the-police-state/?eiid&rmid=2011_05_23_PLA_P11773540&rrid=238466338Our descent into a police state is complete, as evidenced by rulings by the Indiana... more
-
-
Saturday night, a certified TSA official will be at the Santa Fe High School prom to oversee student searches.
This all comes after two Capital High School students, sisters, filed a lawsuit saying they were groped by a security agent at Capital High School's prom last month. On Friday, the court ordered Santa Fe Public Schools and the security company ASI to provide at least one TSA certified person at the Santa Fe High School prom and the Capital High School graduation.
KOB Eyewitness News 4 talked to one of the sisters suing the district earlier this week. Candice Herrera said, "She grabbed my breast and shook the inner part of my bra and shook it and then picked up the front of my dress to mid thigh and she was patting down my bare legs."Saturday night, a certified TSA official will be at the Santa Fe High School prom to... more
-
-
The Texas House passed a bill that would make it a criminal offense for public servants to inappropriately touch travelers during airport security pat-downs.
Approved late Thursday night, the measure makes it illegal for anyone conducting searches to touch “the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of another person” including through clothing.
It also prohibits searches “that would be offensive to a reasonable person.”
The bill’s chief sponsor is Republican Rep. David Simpson, who said, “this has to do with dignity and travel, and prohibiting indecent, groping searches.”
He believes it will keep Transportation Security Administration officials from treating travelers like criminals, though the measure may be superseded by federal law.
After a brief but raucous debate, lawmakers approved the measure with little opposition — drawing applause from supporters.The Texas House passed a bill that would make it a criminal offense for public... more
-
-
There is a hot debate looming in Washington that will soon take over the top spot in news. The debate is among the Fourth Amendment scholars about what the warrants mean when a judge issues search warrants on computers, if there need to be limits to where and what to be searched at in...
http://bit.ly/ifaPbcThere is a hot debate looming in Washington that will soon take over the top spot in... more
-
-
Remember when Barry Obama said he would close Gitmo because it wasn’t right to hold people without formal charges and trials? He made the pledge soon after assuming the ceremonial throne. He said he would get it done within 12 months. Barry didn’t really mean it.
Now comes word that Obama will sign an executive order that will formalize indefinite detention without trial of detainees kidnapped on the battlefields of undeclared and illegal wars.
The supposed plan to close Guantanamo is on hold, according to the Washington Post. It could be crippled if Congress bans the transfer of detainees to the United States for trial and sets up steep hurdles to the repatriation or resettlement in third countries of other detainees.
Obama’s cronies are working feverishly on the executive order. “If Congress blocks the administration’s ability to put detainees on trial or transfer them out of Guantanamo… the executive order could still be implemented,” the Post explains.
“I would argue that you still have to go ahead because you can’t simply have people confined to a life sentence without any review and then fight another day with Congress,” said a senior administration official.
Earlier this month, Congress passed on a 212-206 vote a bill that forbids Obama and crew from transferring any detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to the United States and giving them trials. The bill mentions by name the al-Qaeda scary man and poster child for the forever war against mercurial terror, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
KSM supposedly confessed to all aspects of the September 11, 2001, terror attack, including making NORAD stand down and defying the laws of physics.
“KSM’s confession was announced to the world by the very people who routinely torture prisoners, hold secret military trials behind closed doors, and bar all lawyers and reporters from being anywhere near the courtroom,” Nila Sagadevan wrote in 2007.
Millions of people bought into Obama’s change mantra. But some of us knew it would be merely a continuation of policies adopted during the Bush regime, policies built upon a foundation created by Bill Clinton who inherited the agenda from Reagan and George Dubya’s daddy.
Mitt and Sarah or Huck – whomever the elite decide will be the carnival barker next time – will continue and build upon the malodorous edifice constructed by Barry Obama, or rather constructed by the shadow government men behind Obama the teleprompter reader.
Next up – American citizens who are described as white al-Qaeda.
On Tuesday, we learned that Obama’s man at the Justice Department, Eric Holder, stays up at night worrying about miscreant Americans who may plot murder and mayhem in the name of the international jihad formulated by CIA operatives, patsies, and useful idiots.
“The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here to worrying about people in the United States,” Holder said. “American citizens raised here, born here. You didn’t worry about this even two years ago.”
“The threat is real,” he added. “The threat is different. The threat is constant.”
Holder was praised by incoming House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King of New York who is pleased that Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama administration have had an “awakening” about the threat of homegrown Islamist terrorism, according to The Daily Caller.
King plans to open a congressional inquiry into the radicalization of American Muslims once the Republicans take control of the House Homeland Security Committee in the next Congress.
Obama’s latest executive order will come in mighty handy if King’s witch hunt produces a fresh crop of victims.
The Fourth Amendment will not be allowed to stand in the way of the forever war against manufactured enemies who are not permitted to pull off an effective attack on the freedom lovers. Flaming underwear and dud barbeque gas grill canisters will have to suffice – for now.
Holder said officialdom may have missed signals of the next attack. He cited the internet and the Pentagon diner Awlaki who is “able to utilize the web to reach out to an increasingly tech-savvy worldwide population, accessing potential converts around the world,” according to KKTV in Colorado.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-executive-order-targets-fourth-amendment.htmlRemember when Barry Obama said he would close Gitmo because it wasn’t right to... more
-
-
It is starting to look like the president who campaigned on closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay may end up doing something wholly different: signing a law that would pave the way for terrorism suspects to be held indefinitely.
Administration officials are looking at the possibility at codifying detention without trial and are awaiting legislation that is supposed to come out of Congress early next year.
Analysts say two key events have conspired to force President Obama's hand on indefinite detention legislation. Last week, a New York jury nearly acquitted Ahmed Ghailani, a young Tanzanian who was charged with more than 280 counts of murder and conspiracy for his alleged role in the 1998 embassy bombings in Africa; and Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in midterm elections.
Case Highlights Administration's Dilemma
Obama administration officials had thought the Ghailani case would be a slam-dunk. Four other men were convicted of the same crime in the same New York federal court back in 2002.
But in this case, after five days of deliberation the jury convicted Ghailani of a single charge of conspiracy.
"The jury came within one count of acquitting him entirely," says Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "And had that happened that would have put the government in an enormously difficult position because if you hold a trial and somebody is acquitted, it kind of violates our sense of what a trial is to say, well, we're going to hold him anyway."
Ghailani was never going to walk out of the courtroom a free man because the Obama Justice Department, from Attorney General Eric Holder on down, has made clear that if any high-profile terrorism suspects are acquitted, they will never go free. They would be held as enemy combatants instead.
Juan Zarate, a former deputy national security adviser in the Bush administration and now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says that's a huge problem. When prosecutors can hold someone behind bars even without proving their case the criminal trial becomes a show trial.
The way the Obama administration has approached this has been less than clear. They have applied different legal frameworks for different problems and that has created confusion.
- Juan Zarate, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former deputy national security adviser in the Bush administration
"When the attorney general is asked if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind] or, in this case, Ghailani is acquitted, and the answer for all intents and purposes is he'll remain in custody regardless of the verdict, that is a problematic answer in the context of the use of the criminal legal system," Zarate says.
"Heads I win, tails you lose, is not the way our justice system is supposed to work," he adds.
Possible Alternatives
If holding someone indefinitely as a fallback position is a bad idea, there are only a couple of alternatives. One is to try suspects in a military commission — which operates under different rules of evidence, although analysts are quick to say that the evidence that was barred from the federal trial in the Ghailani case probably wouldn't have been admissible in a military commission either.
Another option is to imprison terrorism suspects without ever going to trial — to just hold them.
And that's what lawmakers are looking at now. In August, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina quietly introduced a bill that would codify indefinite detention. He wanted to answer questions such as what kind of enemy combatant could be locked up without trial? How much evidence would government need to do that?
While the idea of holding suspects indefinitely without charge is against everything the American legal system stands for, it is happening already: Mohammed was captured in March 2003 and has been in Guantanamo Bay since September 2006.
What would be new are clear rules to govern the practice. Right now, the administration says that it can hold terrorism suspects under the laws of war, a principle that has been upheld by the courts. There is also some legal cover in the resolution Congress passed in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks that provides sweeping powers to the executive to keep America safe.
"We need a framework that is legal and defensible that balances the individuals' rights with the right of the government to defend itself," says Zarate. "The way the Obama administration has approached this has been less than clear. They have applied different legal frameworks for different problems and that has created confusion."
Even if the Obama administration wanted to try low-level detainees in U.S. courts, it faces so much opposition from Congress it would be hard to do. And now, with the new Republican majority in the House, what was once very hard could become impossible.
It is un-American to hold people without charge or trial. Codifying indefinite detention will end up legitimizing it.
- Laura Murphy of the ACLU's Washington office.
That's why analysts say that Obama, rather than close Guantanamo, will end up having to support a law that holds suspects indefinitely. As one administration official who is privy to the deliberations told NPR, "I can’t see a way around that outcome right now."
Zarate says the mixed verdict in the Ghailani case shows that the administration needs to define detention better than it has. "The decision on signing legislation on indefinite detention may be crystallizing in certain ways, especially in the post-election environment," he says. "They are going to begin to speak about it more publicly and more directly. I think in many ways they have already made this decision."
Civil Liberties Groups Cry Foul
"It is un-American to hold people without charge or trial," says Laura Murphy of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office. "Codifying indefinite detention will end up legitimizing it."
What, she asks, if the detainees suspected of terrorism are actually innocent? What kind of system would there be to determine that? Would there be any kind of judicial review? If this applies to terrorism now, she asks, how long before it applies to drug lords or human traffickers or organized crime?
Wittes of the Brookings Institution sees it differently. He says indefinite detention without rules, which essentially is what is happening now, should concern people more. Individual judges, U.S. attorneys and civil liberties lawyers are handling this on a case-by-case basis. And that is making the process murky.
"If your concern is not legitimizing it, lying about it is a very strange way to do that," says Wittes. "And what we are doing is lying to ourselves about the detention which we engage in."
Incoming House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith of Texas is working on a companion bill to Graham's effort. His aides declined to provide any detail about legislation that is in the works.
And administration officials told NPR that they didn't want to discuss the legislation before they actually see what's in it.
What seems clear at this point, however, is that one of the things to come out of the new Congress is going to be something that deals squarely with detainee detention.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-administration-weighs-killing-fourth-amendment/It is starting to look like the president who campaigned on closing the prison at... more
-
-
Blogger Matt Kernan was able to bypass both the naked body scanner and invasive TSA pat down procedures during his return to the United States this past weekend, proving that both measures are completely unconstitutional and creating a precedent for a total shake-up of airport security.
Kernan, who documents the case on his website, was returning from a trip to Europe and was perturbed to see TSA workers making Americans who had already cleared security in their airport of origin go through backscatter x-ray machines and be groped simply to re-enter their own country.
“You see, it is official TSA policy that people (both citizens and non-citizens alike) from international flights are screened as they enter the airport, despite the fact that they have already flown,” writes Kernan. “Even before the new controversial security measures were put in place, I found this practice annoying. But now, as I looked past the 25 people waiting to get into their own country, I saw it: the dreaded Backscatter imaging machine.”
Having seen the plethora of cases in recent weeks of TSA thugs abusing and humiliating women and children, Kernan, who had no connecting flight and time to kill, decided to take a stand.
So begins Kernan’s description of his 2 and a half hour debate with TSA officials and airport police after he refused to go through the naked scanner or be groped.
After TSA workers laughed at Kernan for opting out of the radiation scanner, he politely informed them that if they touched his genitals he would consider it an assault.
With TSA officials repeating “policy” like a broken record, Kernan stated, “I am aware that it is policy, but I disagree with the policy, and I think that it is unconstitutional. As a U.S. citizen, I have the right to move freely within my country as long as I can demonstrate proof of citizenship and have demonstrated no reasonable cause to be detained.”
Soon after the TSA Supervisor, a Delta Airlines manager and the airport police were called and Kernan informed them that he was recording the audio of the exchange on his iPhone.
“I will not do anything that is not explicitly stated on recording as mandatory,” Kernan told them, as the police suggested they conduct the pat down instead of the TSA. However, the cops were forced to back down when they refused to state on record that Kernan would have to have his genitals touched in order to be free to go.
After a disagreement between the police and the TSA about who had jurisdiction to arrest Kernan, the police began to get frustrated with the TSA Supervisor for pawning off the responsibility on them. At this point, the Supervisor tried to involve the “Federal Security Director,” who was told that Kernan was being polite and citing his constitutional rights.
After more deliberation, Kernan was eventually escorted out of the airport without having to go through a naked body scanner or have his genitals groped.
“And then came the most ridiculous scene of which I’ve ever been a part. I gather my things – jacket, scarf, hat, briefcase, chocolates. We walk over to the staff entrance and he scans his badge to let me through. We walk down the long hallway that led back to the baggage claim area. We skip the escalators and moving walkways. As we walk, there are TSA officials stationed at apparent checkpoints along the route. As we pass them, they form part of the circle that is around me. By the end of the walk, I count 13 TSA officials and 2 uniformed police officers forming a circle around me.
Read More: http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2010/11/man-proves-tsa-policies-are.htmlBlogger Matt Kernan was able to bypass both the naked body scanner and invasive TSA... more
-
-
If you plan on flying to Grandma's house this Thanksgiving, the Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, is giving you an unsavory choice: let them see a naked image of your body or let them grope your chest and crotch.
Sound unreasonable? Well, it's all in the name of safety and will be the reality of air travel out of LAX and virtually every other U.S. airport in the near future.
TSA's Advance Imaging Technology (AIT), better known as full-body scanners, are capable of producing a nude image for remote security screeners using special x-ray technology that focuses on the skin.
Those wishing to opt out of the scan will face an "enhanced pat down," which includes officials using the palm-side of their hand on sensitive areas like the breasts and crotch, according to Christopher Ott, an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) spokesman in Massachusetts.
This was confirmed by a middle-aged couple flying into LAX from Norfolk, VA Monday night. "They felt all over," the woman said, running her hands over her body. When she said the search didn't make her feel uncomfortable, her spouse blurted out, "But her husband did!"
The unnamed couple said it was the last time they would fly.
While not all airports or all terminals have received the full-body scanners, technicians were installing a new scanner at LAX's Terminal 1 Monday night
Critics call the scanners a "virtual strip search," violating the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens protection from unreasonable searches that violate their dignity and personal privacy.
"This technology involves a striking and direct invasion of privacy," an ACLU backgrounder states. The graphic images produced by the scanners "amounts to a significant assault on the essential dignity of passengers."
Both the machines and the new pat downs have drawn fire from all sides.
Israeli security expert, Rafi Sela, who designs airport security systems, has claimed that he could get past the scanners with enough explosives to bring down a 747. "AIT scanners are useless," Sela said in an email. "The system is useless."
Last March, even the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported doubts that the technology would have detected the bomber last Christmas.
American Muslims might represent the social group most antagonized by the new procedures. The Fiqh Council of North America issued a statement last February saying it was, "deeply concerned about the use of nude body scanners," as Islamic teaching forbids men or women to be seen naked. The Council could not be reached for comment on the new pat downs.
Clearly, being forced to choose between a virtual strip search and a frisking that would be sexual assault in any other setting is outrageous. Without suspicion that you are breaking the law, these searches are unconstitutional.
You only have to imagine a man viewing your son or daughter naked or feeling your girlfriend up and down to grasp how flagrantly wrong this is.
Don't be afraid to get angry. Tweet it, Facebook it, and talk about it. Speaking out is the only way to reverse a security policy as demeaning and unlawful as this one.
http://www.studentvoiceonline.com/opinion/virtual-strip-search-awaits-holiday-travelers-1.2401871If you plan on flying to Grandma's house this Thanksgiving, the Transportation... more
-
-
News outlet The Examiner reports that despite assurances by a key member of the Obama administration, Pakistani passengers flying in or out of the U.S. will be subjected to enhanced screening, including full-body pat-downs, a physical inspection of personal property, or screening by one of the 40 advanced-imaging machines located in 19 U.S. airports.News outlet The Examiner reports that despite assurances by a key member of the Obama... more
-
-
President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions of the controversial counterterrorism statute, the USA PATRIOT Act. Provisions in the measure would have expired this past week without Obama’s signature.
The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the events of Sept. 11, 2001, expands the government's ability to spy on Americans in the name of national security.President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions of the... more
-
-
In a case before a federal appeals court, the Obama administration is arguing to allow warrantless tracking for cell phones.In a case before a federal appeals court, the Obama administration is arguing to allow... more
-
-
Students Spied On With School Issued Laptops
The scandal surrounding kids being spied on at home via webcams in laptops provided by schools extends further than just schoolchildren – four years ago Google admitted that it was implementing similar invasive surveillance technologies that would target all Americans.
Parents! Americans!!! You Must See this... Full Story On how You are Being Spied upon ... No Warrant needed....http://ctpatriot1970.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/big-brother-spying-on-your-children-through-their-laptops-covertly-monitoring-families-in-their-homes/
A school district in Philadelphia faces a class action lawsuit after it allegedly issued laptop computers to 1,800 students across two high schools and then used concealed cameras within the machines to spy on students and their parents without their knowledge or consent.Students Spied On With School Issued Laptops
The scandal surrounding kids being... more
-
-
Police Blotter is a regular CNET News report on the intersection of technology and the law.
What: Feds want to eavesdrop on touch tones pressed during phone calls without obtaining a court-authorized wiretap order first.
When: U.S. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein in the Eastern District of New York rules on December 16, 2008.
Outcome: Surveillance request rejected.
What happened, according to court records and other documents:
Just about everyone knows that the FBI must obtain a formal wiretap order from a judge to listen in on your phone calls legally. But the U.S. Department of Justice believes that police don't need one if they want to eavesdrop on what touch tones you press during the call.
Those touch tones can be innocuous ("press 0 for an operator"). Or they can include personal information including bank account numbers, passwords, prescription identification numbers, Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, and so on--all of which most of us would reasonably view as private and confidential.
That brings us to New York state, where federal prosecutors have been arguing that no wiretap order is necessary. They insist that touch tones cannot be "content," a term of art that triggers legal protections under the Fourth Amendment.Police Blotter is a regular CNET News report on the intersection of technology and the... more
-
-
In addition to its current wiretap lawsuit against AT&T (which the government is trying to dismiss), the EFF has filed suit against Cheney, Gonzales, and a host of others.
By suing the government directly, the EFF is attempting to undermine the government's plan to use a new power handed to it by Congress in July. The so-called telecom immunity provision nearly automatically forces a judge to dismiss lawsuits against companies accused of helping the government spy -- without court approval -- on the phone and internet communications of Americans.
Last week, the government told a federal court judge overseeing some 38 cases against the telecoms that it would file those papers on AT&T's behalf by Friday.
Thursday's potential class action suit against the government -- filed in federal district court in Northern California -- seeks a halt to the program, an accounting of who was spied on and damages for the five named plaintiffs.
It also names high government officials -– in their official and personal capacities -- putting them at risk of fines they would be personally liable for.
Among those listed – former Attorney General John Ashcroft, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, along with current and former heads of intelligence agencies involved in the spying.
"In addition to suing AT&T, we've now opened a second front in the battle to stop the NSA's illegal surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and hold personally responsible those who authorized or participated in the spying program," said senior staff attorney Kevin Bankston.
The suit argues the spying violated federal wiretap law, the First Amendment's guarantee of anonymous speech and the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches.
Others have challenged the government program directly, but no one has succeeded so far. The EFF hopes the whistle-blower evidence it has used to keep the AT&T case alive will also work to prove it has a right to sue the feds as well.
The EFF plans to contest the legality of the so-called telecom immunity powers -- but wants to have another avenue to pursue its goal of having the program declared illegal.
Though the full extent of the secret spying is not known, media reports indicate the government collected phone calls and emails – with the help of American telecoms -- where one party was inside the U.S. and one was outside the country.
Until recently, wiretapping law required court orders to collect that information inside the U.S.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which largely legalized did not immunize the government or government officials.In addition to its current wiretap lawsuit against AT&T (which the government is... more
-
-
If you’re like the ACLU you believe in privacy, the Fourth Amendment and the fact that Congress just did an unforgivable thing to both by passing the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. And, if you are like me and a few others I know, then you spent last week anticipating then reveling in the release of The Dark Knight. If you’re with me on all of those counts, then you probably found a particular scene in the latest Batman to be as timely as I did.
Spoiler alert!
Towards the end of the film, the Caped Crusader asks one of his trusted confidants to conduct broad and invasive surveillance on the citizens of Gotham by essentially turning every cell phone into a microphone to locate a certain and marvelously played villain. That confidant (played by Morgan Freeman who is pretty much amazing in all he is and does) initially has the correct reaction saying, “It’s not my job to spy on 30 million people.” Wow. Imagine if that happened in real life…
Well, unfortunately, like the telecoms before him, Mr. Freeman’s character reluctantly goes along with the plan saying he’ll resign and terminate the program after “this one time.”
At least he didn’t ask for immunity.
lol, lol, tells it all.If you’re like the ACLU you believe in privacy, the Fourth Amendment and the... more
-
