Electronic communication transactional records

[AZhitman]

All those who freaked over "warrantless wiretapping" should be tripping over themselves to criticize this gem.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 06141.html

[IBCoupe]

Yeah, that needs to not happen. Hope they get shot down.

My Evidence professor made a humorous, but insightful remark on Wednesday. It was in a discussion about admissable hearsay and Sixth Amendment limitations on it. The relevant bit to this was in passing and towards the end of the rant. I'll try to paraphrase to the best of my ability:

When police ask us a question, what do we do? Do we clam up and say, "I don't have to answer that question, and so I won't?" No, we deny the crime. "Do you know that you were speeding back there?" "Uh, no, officer, I had no idea." Well, there you've just admitted to reckless driving, because speeding is strict liability! It doesn't matter if you knew!

The court goes to great lengths to protect our Fifth Amendment rights, which apparently we couldn't care less about. Our Fourth Amendment rights are quickly disappearing, but our Fifth Amendment rights are safely secured by the Courts.

[wingFeather]

Let's all hope this change gets thrown out! Man, this garbage makes me ragingly pissed off.

O ne
B ig
A ss
M istake
A merica

May his days be few...

[AZhitman]

My Evidence professor made a humorous, but insightful remark on Wednesday. It was in a discussion about admissable hearsay and Sixth Amendment limitations on it. The relevant bit to this was in passing and towards the end of the rant. I'll try to paraphrase to the best of my ability:

When police ask us a question, what do we do? Do we clam up and say, "I don't have to answer that question, and so I won't?" No, we deny the crime. "Do you know that you were speeding back there?" "Uh, no, officer, I had no idea." Well, there you've just admitted to reckless driving, because speeding is strict liability! It doesn't matter if you knew!

The court goes to great lengths to protect our Fifth Amendment rights, which apparently we couldn't care less about. Our Fourth Amendment rights are quickly disappearing, but our Fifth Amendment rights are safely secured by the Courts.

That's solid. Makes you think, doesn't it?

On a side note, I've ALWAYS been forthright when pulled over.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Yes sir. I was doing roughly 56 in a 45 back there."

Guess who hasn't had a ticket in years? This guy.

Back on topic, why do you think this hasn't been more widely reported on? Any chance you could bring it up in class for discussion? I'd love to hear an "experts" opinion on it.

Is it not at the forefront of the news because it's a non-issue? Is it liberal media bias? Is it just unlikely to fly? Regardless, it shows INTENT, and that's what scares me. Even if it goes nowhere, it gives us insight into the INTENT of this Administration.

[audtatious]

The Dems are never what they try to appear to be

"Today, in 1866, the Democratic government in New Orleans ordered a raid on a racially integrated meeting of the Republican Party. 40 people were killed and 150 were injured."

[n00b240]

While I really dont agree with most things Audtatious has to say, That pic is awesome. As a half negro Im a little offended by that gross caricature. But I laughed so hard, the kool aid I was drinking came out my nose and onto the keyboard, ruining the "perioid" key. Im stuck using the period from the number pad.

I need to save that picture, and see if I can find one bigger to put on a wall in my place.

Having said that, In politics nothing is at is appears to be. Democrat or Republican, or (insert political party here)

PS People heavy into politics are always diggin up some crazy a** s***, like that picture, to prove how much the other side is messed. Aint nothin changed up in Washington. And damn you Audtatious for ruining my period key

[audtatious]

Sorry about your keyboard. I actually didn't dig the picture up, others did. Does go to show you can't always believe the hype.

You are still young and will come around more. As you grow and start really "making it in life" (have money to do other things without worrying about paychecks and bills) you really start paying attention to who is screwing you. Right now it's both sides but not every one who is a member of both sides is doing it. Granted, I guess you can blame them too as they are letting it happen. I blame Pelosi, Reed, Frank, and the Republican members who went on spending spree's when Bush was in office. Pelosi, Reed, Obama Admin are in charge right now so they will simply get my wrath......

[IBCoupe]

That's solid. Makes you think, doesn't it?

On a side note, I've ALWAYS been forthright when pulled over.

"Do you know why I pulled you over?"

"Yes sir. I was doing roughly 56 in a 45 back there."

Guess who hasn't had a ticket in years? This guy.

Back on topic, why do you think this hasn't been more widely reported on? Any chance you could bring it up in class for discussion? I'd love to hear an "experts" opinion on it.

Is it not at the forefront of the news because it's a non-issue? Is it liberal media bias? Is it just unlikely to fly? Regardless, it shows INTENT, and that's what scares me. Even if it goes nowhere, it gives us insight into the INTENT of this Administration.

You know what's really sad, Greg? This is what people were complaining about in the last administration. When liberals were told to sit down and let the men drive, and not to worry about all those itty-bitty rights that the Executive was eating away at... Yeah, about that. Think it might have really been a problem.

Expansive executive powers are scary, no matter which brand they carry. I don't think the intent of this Administration is much different than the intent of any other administration - get done what they want to get done. It just so happens we've had a populace for a while that's been keen on letting them do so.

/nine-eleven.

[AZhitman]

OK, I'll concede that. You nailed it.

However, this is a "leader" who made this one of his campaign pledges. He RAN on this ticket. He repeatedly brought up issues like "warrantless wiretapping" (which remains in place, BTW) as things he would stand against if we elected him.

Not only has he not changed his stance on the issue, but he's gone above and beyond even the previous Administration's actions.

[audtatious]

Seems every President down the chain has expanded on it (remember Clinton's "Echelon"). How "good" for us I guess, we should be thankful.

[bigbadberry3]

I rarely if ever try to bring Dubya up but I blame him for starting the warrant less wireless taps.

Regardless, still very disappointed that Obama decide further the trend.

Poor America.

[audtatious]

I rarely if ever try to bring Dubya up but I blame him for starting the warrant less wireless taps.

Regardless, still very disappointed that Obama decide further the trend.

Poor America.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/ ... 1452.shtml

"But in fact, the NSA had been monitoring private domestic telephone conversations on a much larger scale throughout the 1990s - all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks."

[bigbadberry3]

The difference here is that we (the public) KNEW Bush was doing these things and were told to sit down and shut up, where as it appears Clinton's actions came out after leaving. Still not cool.

[audtatious]

No, I remember the complaints about Echelon "back then".

I simply don't want those who were kids during the Clinton Presidency to think things like warrantless wiretapping didn't already exist.

[bigbadberry3]

I'm going to have to please ignorance but thanks for the information

I mean it's naive to think that they aren't but still.

[IBCoupe]

What's creepy/different about Echelon was how it was entirely legal. While the Clinton administration found a loophole and proceeded to violate us through it, the W. Bush administration ripped us a new one. Now the Obama administration can give it to us doubly hard.

BBB3's right. The people who complained after 9/11 were told to sit down and shut up. I remember that vividly. I remember being told by my peers and high school professors (in between classes, of course) exactly that after the Patriot Act was passed in October of '01.

And, Greg, I'm not the guy to cry to about broken campaign promises (though I know that's not really what you're doing); I never voted for the guy. I liked him more than most of the candidates in either field, but that was due to his rhetorical responses to side issues that most people brushed aside (if the national media's portrayal of the 2008 election issues are any indication).

[audtatious]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

[IBCoupe]

Or, in this case, twice as sweet.

[audtatious]

Seems to double with each new President, regardless of their political association. Now they are going after access to everyone's private emails.

[IBCoupe]

Seems to double with each new President, regardless of their political association. Now they are going after access to everyone's private emails.

Now all we can hope is that the courts keep them from doing it, and those who are concerned aren't told to sit down and shut up this time.

[AZhitman]

However, this is a "leader" who made this one of his campaign pledges. He RAN on this ticket. He repeatedly brought up issues like "warrantless wiretapping" (which remains in place, BTW) as things he would stand against if we elected him.

Not only has he not changed his stance on the issue, but he's gone above and beyond even the previous Administration's actions.

Hmmm.

Did we not make ourselves clear on this issue back when this thread was starteed? Apparently not:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... taps_N.htm

[HashiriyaS14]

The War on Terror has motivated the Executive Branch (under *both* parties) to seek out more powers like this. I opposed them under Bush/Cheney and I oppose them equally under Obama. It will continue, and it is a defensible thing to ask for given the circumstances, but I don't think that the powers should be granted.

[AZhitman]

My point was that the sense of uproar was obvious before. This hasn't even registered on the radar.

Most lefties have no idea that he's running counter to their [purported] beliefs.

[wingFeather]

Most lefties have no idea that he's running counter to their [purported] beliefs.

Even if you present them with evidence they deny it. That's why I think they are intentional - not uninformed. As long as he's black & liberal, they could care less what he does. On the flip side, if a white conservative spits on the sidewalk then they want him dead!

[dusred]

The War on Terror has motivated the Executive Branch (under *both* parties) to seek out more powers like this.

The War On Terror? What is this terror war you speak of?. . . that's right. Obama won't even acknowledge it as a war on terror so how can he justify such means to help stop it? If it's not a war on terror why do we need this extra invasion on our privacy to help stop it? I remember well when Bush passed the "Patriot Act" (could anyone have chosen a worse name for such an act?) but at the time we actually had terrorists breaking down our front door.

[IBCoupe]

In the left's defense, at least this time it's being couched in some less-than-outrageous language. It's being framed as a modernization of police tactics - the (not an) expansion of what Police already can do for telephones to emerging communication networks.

While I certainly see the argument against the police powers, I can't help but wonder what our excuse is for standing opposed to them in one venue but sit blithely by as they have been in place for years in others.

[dusred]

Another thought on the subject: So the Obama admin immediately takes steps to shut down Gitmo to give terrorists freedom and at the same time closing the door for very valuable information, and in the next sentence he wants to take away more American freedom by allowing the FBI to hack our email and other private online information. Very classy. Who is more important We The People or the terrorists?

[IBCoupe]

The interview I heard invoked child molesters and terrorists as the targets for this hacking.

I've never been convinced that "we the people" and "the terrorlst" are mutually exclusive categories.

[heliochrome85]

timothy mcveigh was a citizen.

[dusred]

The interview I heard invoked child molesters and terrorists as the targets for this hacking.

I've never been convinced that "we the people" and "the terrorlst" are mutually exclusive categories.

If you're one of We The People you get your internets hacked legally by the Feds.

If you're a terrorlst at Gitmo you get released and your freedom returned.


See what I'm saying?