Skip to Content

Privacy

CISPA sneaks through House while media busy covering Boston bombing

[W]hat is worrisome is that the legislation was passed in the House, largely by a party that is supposed to be all for smaller, less intrusive government. See how there isn't much difference these days between Republicans and Democrats?

At CISPA's core is the Fourth Amendment, which reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That seems clear enough - no government intrusion into your private "effects" without "probable cause" and a search warrant. But, says Bomboy,  would essentially nullify these rights as long as the federal government says it needs to do so to protect you:

CISPA is designed to let the federal government work with private companies to fight hackers and cybercriminals in and outside of the United States. As part of the effort to detect cyber threats, private companies could voluntarily share with the  data about Internet users. The sharing could be done in "real time" as the cybercops try to defeat and track down the evildoers. Companies could also share data among themselves as part of the effort.

Proposed WA law would allow the sheriff to inspect the homes of gun owners

Overreach much? Sheesh.

In California they are confiscating tens of thousands of legally purchased firearms while in Washington state a new law has been proposed that would allow the sheriff to inspect the homes of an assault weapon owner one time per year. How far will gun regulations go?

You can now be laser-scanned for stress, drugs, guns, and explosives from 160 feet away

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

.

From smartphones to iPad’s — technology is great, as most of us use it throughout our day as a way of life in the year 2012.

However, now private security firms such as the , Q-Tel, and other governmental agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) see that it is in the general public’s best interest if they can secretively scan the populace while raking in vast financial gains to boot.

Within the next few years DHS plans to scan you secretively from various locations including at airports with laser-based molecular scanners from distances of up to 164 feet away.

In fact, the machine is so advanced that it can sense traces of drugs, weapons, explosives, and even your adrenaline level, without ever touching you — delivering the information directly to agents through an interface.

Warrentless GPS tracking will lead to "1984"

 has a short piece on the SCOTUS case to determine whether it is ok for the government to track citizens via GPS devices without the need for a warrent. At least one justice has an issue with that:

A Supreme Court justice on Tuesday expressed major concerns that the government would engage in round-the-clock surveillance reminiscent of the totalitarian world of the George Orwell novel 1984 if the court ruled in the government's favor.

The court heard oral arguments in the Jones case, in which the outcome will determine whether warrantless GPS tracking by law enforcement is an invasion of Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

Justice Stephen Breyer questioned what a democratic society would look like if people believed the government was tracking them for days at a time.

"If you win this case, then there is nothing to prevent the police or the government from monitoring 24 hours a day the public movement of every citizen of the United States,” Breyer said. “So if you win, you suddenly produce what sounds like 1984from their brief."

U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben contended that if all Americans viewed warrantless tracking as an Orwellian invasion of privacy, Congress would step in with a legislative solution.

Federal government wants warrant-less tracking of U.S. citizens to build their case for probable cause

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." ~Fourth Amendment

The Federal government is arguing it's case before the Supreme Court that they should be allowed to track Americans via GPS to determine the "probably cause" necessary to obtain a warrant. This seems to make a pretty huge assumption on the part of law enforcement.

It assumes that the transmitter is accurate, that there was intent in the destinations, that the trackee was not just driving past locations that could be construed to be connected and illicit. And before you say "You have nothing to worry about if you have ,"

Surrendering our freedoms in exchange for what?

Really good article from . I think it can be summarized by the following line: Whenever government exceeds those proper bounds, it violates honest citizens’ rights, rather than protecting them. Rather than the guilty, the innocent thus bear the costs.

As you will read, those costs are not always financial.

 

Benjamin Franklin once  Americans that “they who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” Yet in the seemingly unrelated areas of health care and physical security, our political leaders are embracing this folly with predictably bad results.

Bill of Rights erosion continues - California court rules privacy law supersedes First Amendment

Recently, the against the 4th Amendment saying that even if the police illegally enter your home, you are not allowed to resist. Now, a California court has ruled that the Privacy Act supersedes the 1st Amendment protection for freedom of press.

The First Amendment does not protect the conduct of two conservative activists who secretly filmed an employee of the national community organizing group Acorn, a federal judge ruled. 

Juan Carlos Vera claimed James O'Keefe III and Hannah Giles visited his office in August 2009, and conspired to create video and audio tapes of him, even after asking him if their conversation would be confidential. The Acorn acronym stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

O'Keefe and Giles are best known for going undercover to discredit organizations like Acorn and Planned Parenthood. In one encounter, Giles posed as a prostitute and O'Keefe as a pimp to videotape an Acorn employee offering advice on how to run a tax-free brothel for underage sex workers.

Syndicate content


by Dr. Radut