Can someone confirm for me that the 4th Amendment even applies?

[Orrex]

In the past several days it's become somewhat common to respond to questions about the data dragnet with the text of the 4th Amendment, which of course reads as follows:

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.

But here's where I'm confused: the dragnet has been scooping up data from telecom companies. Does the 4th Amendment apply to information that citizens freely hand over to a third party, for use on that third party's equipment?

I expect that the customer typically must sign a contract allowing the provider to review user data, or something to that effect, and if so then that would seem to be the end of the discussion.

If I tell you that I will likely repeat any story that you tell me, and you thereafter tell me a story that I repeat to the feds, is that a violation of your 4th amendment rights?


I'm not asking to be snarky--I'm honestly not sure of how this process is supposed to work.

[graham4anything]

1. No, it does not apply. nt.

[randome]

2. Big data in small places.

The whole Verizon aspect is analogous to Verizon handing over a hard drive with all customer data on it. NSA then runs a program to pull only those numbers that match a pattern and that include foreign communications. Then the hard drive is either destroyed or put in a warehouse somewhere.

I don't see that as an 'unreasonable search' but I understand the viewpoint of those who do. It's evidence to me that our Constitution is woefully outdated because our 18th century forebears could not have imagined our society in their wildest dreams.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[dkf]

3. And if your security cameras lead to a third party security firm, can they give your video feed

To the government?

Boy if you think that is the case, where does it end?

[Orrex]

8. Depends on your agreement with the security firm, I should think.

If they're subpoenaed, then they'd likely be forced to turn over the data with or without your permission or knowledge. The 4th amendment is preserved by requiring the subpoena.

If your agreement stipulates that your data and system usage may be subject to periodic review, then they can probably turn it over even without a subpoena. The 4th amendment is irrelevant because you've granted permission to have your data reviewed.

Boy if you think that is the case, where does it end?

It should end with the awareness that a commercial relationship between two parties does not necessarily enjoy the same protections as a locked box kept under your bed.

[Paulie]

4. It's the private loophole for government doing things it's prohibited from doing

Run it through a non public entity and its no longer under the same protections as direct government action.

http://m.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/04/do-you-want-the-government-buying-your-data-from-corporations/275431/

Thinking about this, it may be the best way to have a national gun registry, make it a private company... Hhhmmmmm

[Recursion]

6. I don't know that private/public is what matters: I'm asking someone else to route my call

does that routing data belong to me or to them?

[Paulie]

22. It belongs to them

Which means now its not about the person anymore but a request to a company for a business record.

We don't have an all encompassing privacy law like the EU.

[Recursion]

5. As a systems administrator I've always thought routing data belonged to me, not the user

I have no idea of the legal status of that thought of mine, but that's always what I've assumed, and I think most admins feel that way.

[Orrex]

11. I'm glad that you brought that up.

An argument can be made that the email itself (i.e., my birthday wish to grandma) is my own information, but I'm not convinced that I retain exclusive rights to the routing data once I send that email through a third party.

If the user does retain exclusive rights to the routing data, then what rights/responsibilities does the service provider have?

[Recursion]

12. That actually has some pretty big implications if it's the users': we make retain/delete decisions

without user input.

UNIX systems (by default) have a big single file, /var/log/mqueue, that has the sort of information we're talking about (an email was sent by person A to person B at this date and time -- it doesn't retain even the subject line, incidentally).

For years now I've made decisions about how long to keep that data without any input from the users.

[uponit7771]

20. +1

[pipoman]

7. It applies to information

freely turned over to third parties all the time. Your actual phone calls go through a third party and listening to them without a warrant is an established violation of the 4th. The information you turn over to an insurance company isn't discoverable without a warrant. It comes down to "expectation of privacy", and frankly I believe people should have an expectation of privacy when they are paying a service company for handling their affairs, including a telephone company.

If I tell you that I will likely repeat any story that you tell me, and you thereafter tell me a story that I repeat to the feds, is that a violation of your 4th amendment rights?

No, you can't violate my 4th amendment rights, only the government can..If I am paying you with an expectation of privacy, and you violate that privacy, I will likely prevail in a civil suit. If the feds burst into your office and seize my personal information without a warrant, then my 4th amendment rights may have been violated. If they burst into your office with a warrant for the documents pertaining to Charlie Brown and seize my documents too they may have violated my 4th amendment rights..

I find it unnerving how many people hereabouts are eager to try to justify this rather than demanding accountability and privacy..guess the whole bush terrorist threat nonsense has finally become truth for some..you know what they say, 'repeat a lie enough and it will become truth', eh?

[Orrex]

17. Depends on the contract, I should think

It comes down to "expectation of privacy", and frankly I believe people should have an expectation of privacy when they are paying a service company for handling their affairs, including a telephone company.

But if one's contract with the phone company includes a clause that enables that company to subject user data to periodic review, then that seems to trump the "expectation of privacy" in a pretty straightforward way.

I find it unnerving how many people hereabouts are eager to try to justify this rather than demanding accountability and privacy..guess the whole bush terrorist threat nonsense has finally become truth for some..you know what they say, 'repeat a lie enough and it will become truth', eh?

Don't mistake me. I'm not arguing for Total Information Awareness; I'm simply saying that the arguments I've heard so far about 4th amendment violations have not been convincing, especially when someone simply posts the text of the 4th amendment as some sort of snarky GOTCHA! rejoinder.

The privacy issue is more complex that that IMO, just as the right to keep & bear arms isn't as simple as it was 200+ years ago, either.

[Laelth]

9. As far as I know, yes.

We freely (because we have no choice) hand this information over to companies whose services we wish to use, but that doesn't mean we sacrificed all rights to the information. The government has no more right to compel the info. from a company than it does to compel it from us directly. Of course, the Partiot Act and the FISA Amendment say the government can compel the release of this data, but why do you think the Federal Government had to pass a law shielding these companies from liability when they release the info.? It's because it's clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment for them to release this private data to the government unless the government has a warrant issued "upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The warrant that the NSA uses to collect all this data is far too broad to meet the 4th Amendment's test, imho.

-Laelth

[treestar]

15. In the old days you might go into an office and pay your phone bill

This is scarier sounding due to technology. But in the old days, the clerk certainly could relate to the police or anyone else that you came in and paid your bill, how much it was, etc. The local operator knew who you called and could tell anyone about it, whether as gossip or to tell the police who might be asking. Nothing you do with any third party is private - they can always tell someone about it if they want to. So it is not private in that sense.

The government compelling them to tell is a different thing, and requires a warrant or exception to the warrant requirement. The FISA came about due to technology getting fancier.

[reformist2]

10. Verizon has no right to record your phone calls, no matter what contract they have you sign.

[Orrex]

13. Even if you sign a contract allowing them to record your calls?

I'm dubious. It seems that even a basic contract could grant Verizon the right to do exactly that.


If not, then any company that tells me that "calls may be recorded for quality and training purposes" is violating my privacy.

[treestar]

16. Verizon is a business, it has no economic motive to record phone calls

But if it wanted to, it would. Verizon is under no obligations - the government is, private companies are not.

[FarCenter]

36. There are laws that specifically govern what common carriers can/cannot do with respect to privacy

HIPPA also governs health providers.

If you sign up for a user account with some web site, they are governed by the terms and conditions you didn't read before clicking "I accept".

Note that there are essentially no servers in the internet. The internet consists of routers, switches and communications links. Servers are attached to the internet, just like user's computers (although in many cases with much more bandwidth).

[treestar]

55. The small print of HIPPA might be interesting to look at

Does it have exceptions for the government or national security. Privileges themselves often have exceptions.

[treestar]

14. That's a good question, it is a lot more complex than people are making it out to be

A law school outline for criminal procedure would have a place to start. There are exceptions, and the Fourth is meant for criminal prosecution, so I've been wondering if NSA data cannot be used for that. The FISA was passed to be a control and make oversight, but even so they may not be looking for evidence of crime at all and if they can't use it to prosecute in a criminal case, then the outrage might be that they let criminals go because they got the evidence only this way and had to ignore that and go on to apply it only to national security.

[catnhatnh]

18. I'll approach it from the "signer's intent" angle....

and let's compare that to interpretations of the second amendment. We see a scale of arguments there that run from you may only have muskets to we all deserve nukes. But courts generally recognize the basic intent of citizens rights to small arms and expand the reach of the amendment and strengthen it's guarantees. With this in mind I feel the original intent of the 4th is much more clear-lacking warrants privacy is inviolate and stems from the earlier English common law castle doctrine as it related to privacy rights within your walls. Technological advances may make such programs as prism both possible and attractive but can never confer legality to them. Also such programs have a dimming effect on free association. It's all illegal as hell-the government may not gather information without warrants based on just cause and hope to use them at a later date when cause can be established.

This is just off the top of my head- give me a week or two and I may have a coherent argument...

[MineralMan]

19. It all hinges on one part of that Amendment.

The "unreasonable searches and seizures" thing is the way out for the government. It's why we have TSA searches, among other things. That phrase is the one that enables such things.

According to statements, the actual contents of the phone calls aren't being recorded and saved. Only the fact of the calls and the phone numbers involved. That information is record keeping that the phone company uses for billing purposes. It contains little information, really, and the FISA has granted permission through court orders like the one that was revealed for the NSA to obtain those records, so they will be able to match phone numbers that communicate with each other.

The contents of the communications are not recorded, according to statements by those collecting the information. I can believe that, since doing that would be very costly and would require large amounts of storage.

Similarly, websites like Facebook and even DU, maintain records of people who use their websites. Those records include things like IP addresses used by members, member email addresses, and similar information. If I recall correctly, they are required to maintain these records for a long period of time. Here's what sometimes happens:

1. Some member posts a threat against the President or some other public official, or posts something indicating that they are planning to commit some sort of crime.
2. Some other user sees this and recognizes the threat, and notifies the authorities about it. Often links to the offending post or statement are included in that report, or even a screen shot. We've seen that happen here, with regard to other web sites.
3. The law enforcement organization contacts the owner of the site and asks for information regarding the member who posted the threat.
4. In most cases, the owner of the site is happy to comply with the request, being concerned about the risk.
5. In some cases, as with a site like, say, Free Republic, the owner refuses to comply with the request because the owner agrees with what was expressed.
6. In that case, the law enforcement agency gets a warrant or court order demanding the information, and authorizing the law enforcement agency to go get the information.
7. The owner of the site is served, and either provides the information, or the law enforcement agency seizes it.

This happens all the time, and leads to the offending person being found and questioned. The record-keeping is required, and is used when there is a reasonable cause to do so.

That simple case is not that dissimilar to the Verizon situation. There, the government got a court order to obtain all of the call records from Verizon, because there is probable cause to believe that some Verizon users communicate with people in planning terrorist or other activities. The records are obtained and stored by the government, because Verizon normally deletes them sometime after the billing cycle.

Then, when there is probable cause, the government obtains another court order allowing them to investigate particular records and to see what numbers connected with that court order connect with what other numbers. No actual content is available, because it is not stored by Verizon.

That is what the government is contending that it does. If so, it doesn't meet the "unreasonable search and seizure" issue, and so is legal and Constitutional. There is probable cause to believe that some Verizon calls may be connected with unlawful behavior, so all records of calls are collected. Then, in specific situations, probable cause is used to get another court order to investigate within those records. That is what the NSA and the government say they are doing.

Is the government lying about that? I cannot say, because I don't know. If they're not lying, though, the 4th Amendment is not being violated, because no "unreasonable search and seizure" has been done. So the courts have ruled in these cases. That's the system.

[Orrex]

21. Terrific & thorough answer. Thanks!

[MineralMan]

23. Thanks for the opportunity. I've been thinking about

posting something like that.

[catnhatnh]

24. My objection would be this...

of course "some' users of telephones are connected to unlawful behavior. Just like a SWAT raid on every American home would produce a flaming shitload of unlawful activities including terrorism. When you grab information (read:evidence) from 350 million people on what the government fully admits is a fishing expedition I find it unreasonable.

[MineralMan]

25. According to what has been stated,

they're not even accessing those records, but are just storing them. If needed, they get an additional court order to search for specific information. That's how I understand that it works, anyhow. But, I'm not involved, so I have no first hand information. Just what has been reported.

[catnhatnh]

31. Exactly right...

they are storing information on the entire population, a feat not even equaled by the East German Stasi, to hold to later incriminate anyone they choose to prosecute. Don't you remember when the FBI started building files on people like Martin Luther King and other activists? These people were in fact heroes, but because they opposed the government, the government built files without reasonable cause to be used later IF they could find the slightest excuse. Look at Snowden himself-I've formed no opinion but the media seems damn well ready to lynch him based on the slightest of past accusations. It's like the true incarnation of your high school principals threat to enter something on your "permanent record". Except these fucking people mean it.

[Bonobo]

27. No. It hinges on "probably cause".

Saying it hinges on "unreasonable search" is a a misrepresentation and minimization of the full meaning and intent of the 4th amendment.

[randome]

29. Consider also someone posting about committing suicide.

One of my daughters has 'alerted' on Tumblr users several times when she thought he/she was in danger.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[MineralMan]

32. Yes. That's another example, and has saved lives.

Thanks.

[Bonobo]

26. Of course it does.

There is no probably cause to be searching our personal effects and papers.

It is a no-brainer.

[Orrex]

41. How does data owned by a telecom provider qualify as my personal effects and papers?

The discussion in this thread and many others reveals that it is not, in fact, a no-brainer.

It's not as simple as the pithy paraphrases of Ben Franklin that we keep seeing again and again.

[Bonobo]

45. Well...

I am a writer and translator. I retain ownership of my words for example.

Furthermore, a correspondence with a doctor, or lawyer or even, I would argue, with my wife or friend is private.

It is personal because it is my personal life.

When I write a letter, would you argue that it is not mine if it is in a borrowed envelope?

[Orrex]

47. I agree that the subject matter of the correspondence is confidential

As long as your lawyer hasn't written his letter to you on the outside of the envelope, of course.

If you borrowed the envelope from a friend (assuming that your friend isn't an asshole who claims ownership of the contents), then the material inside is confidential between you and the recipient.


However, although I agree that the contents of the envelope are private and privileged, the fact of the mailing of that envelope is not necessarily so.

That's what's at stake here. Your emails and phone calls are private, but the fact that you sent those emails through a server or dialed your call through a network is not private, and certainly you don't retain privileged ownership of that fact.

[BenzoDia]

28. Smith vs Maryland says no. People can disagree of course.

[Savannahmann]

30. Simple answer, yes.

The fourth is always supposed to apply. It is the reason why the Police need a subpoena or warrant to get your banking data. You willingly hand over information to your bank, but they don't just hand it out willy nilly, or they're not supposed to, without letting you know. You get a statement each year where they tell you what they, in accordance with the law, are reporting to the IRS. Interest you earned for example.

A subpoena or warrant is needed for the information, no matter who is in possession of it. How strictly they defend your rights varies from company to company. But yes, one is needed.

If a friend left a notebook at your house, and the police showed up and told you to give it over. Would you? Personally, I would ask for a warrant, and then I'd call my friend and tell him the cops were there asking for the notebook. It isn't mine to give over, and even if it was mine, I'd still demand to see a warrant. I'd probably go so far as to call my attorney, and shoot him a PDF of the warrant before fully complying. I'd do so on the porch, with the police present, but I'd do so before answering any questions.

The Fourth Amendment is valid so long as we individually and collectively demand that it be the law of this land.

[Orrex]

35. What if the fed simply asks for the data and the company provides it?

No seizure of data, just the fed submitting a request and the telcom company agreeing to it. I don't believe that a subpoena is required to obtain the data unless the owner of the data declines to provide it.

I would also distinguish between your friend's notebook, which is your friend's physical property, versus data transmitted via the servers and networks belonging to a telcom company. I'm not convinced that they are equivalent, not least because the nature of ownership is very different in both cases.

[Savannahmann]

38. Then I will make the same proposal that I made earlier to another thread

I will get on board with this program if, IF Congress makes it punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole for any misuse, or abuse, of the data. Also failure to report such abuse, or misuse, of the data when it is found is punishable by death.

Instead, we hear how the Justice Department accidentally got some data they were not supposed to have, and destroyed it, so all is good. Yet, if I mistakenly pick up a bag that I thought was mine, and find it contains drugs, I am guilty if it is found before I find it. Yes, people have gone to prison for that. A case comes to mind from not long ago. So let's make it the same on the other side. Unauthorized and warrantless access of the data is an offense that is punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole.

It will never happen, and we will never see the abusers of the system held accountable. Therefore, I will never agree to it, because abuses are forgiven on their part, and ignorant mistakes are punished on our part.

[JoePhilly]

33. As I understand it ... there is a distniction between the CONTENT and

the META DATA for the call or email.

So whatever you say in the call, or in the email, is protected and belongs to YOU. That is the content.

The data about the call, from where, duration (size), to where (the meta data) ... belongs to the company that routes it.

The company has their own reasons for maintaining that data. They use it to bill its customers. They use it to plan for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades. In essence, that data is critical for how they manage their business. It is their data.

Now, if you write down who you call, when you call, and how long you talk, that piece of paper belongs to you.

Imagine sending a Christmas present through the mail. The government keeps the data on which location the package was sent from, the stops it makes along the way, and where it ends up, perhaps even who signs for it. That is their data. The present you put in the box, that belonged to you, and you gave it to the receiver. The end.

I remember years ago when the phone company sent you a bill and did not list all of the calls that you made. If you wanted the full list, you had to pay extra to get it.

Why?

Because its their data, it belongs to them, and they were sharing it with you, for a price.

[Demo_Chris]

34. That's like saying the police can open any fed ex package they like. nt

[Orrex]

37. Forgive me, but I don't think that it's the same thing at all.

Instead, it's like the police obtaining data about where the package originated, how much it weighed, and how long it took to arrive at its destination. I'm not sure if they do this routinely or what FedEx's policy about it might be.

Also, this assumes that they are not, in fact, reviewing the content of the calls. If they're tapping into the content, then it is indeed exactly like what you describe.

[Demo_Chris]

39. I was responding to those who claim...

...That goverment can legally access this stuff because it is in the hands of a private third party.

[Orrex]

40. Ah--I see.

Still, a distinction can be made between the external details of the package (weight, dimensions, destination, point of origin, etc.) and the contents of the package.

That is, they don't have authority to access the contents of the package simply because a third party has handled it, but they may have access to the details of the handling.

[Demo_Chris]

51. Even this is constitutionally dubious -- and we both know this is not the limits they are setting.

The government is gathering information on individuals without a warrant naming that individual, any probably cause, the purpose of the search, or what they hope to find. The government cannot constitutionally do this.

That they found or appointed a judge willing to sign off on this nonsense is meaningless, the same process can be used to create a blanket search warant for every private home in the nation. The safeguard that prevents a single judge from doing so has, in this case, been eliminated -- no one is allowed to appeal.

The justification that has been offered, as if this were some kind of legal loophole, is that the search warrant is for the telecom company rather than the company's customers. I was pointing out where this logic failed. The company is not the OWNER of the information or package, they are the carrier. A search warrant for that company allows the government to search that company, not everyone doing business with them.

It is, literally, like getting a search warrant for a company operating toll roads, and then claiming that this warrant grants legal authority to search every privately owned vehicle in America.

[stevenleser]

53. No, its not Constitutionally dubious. All existing case law says it is Constitutional

and there is a TON of existing case law on the subject. Not the least of which is:

US v Duggan
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court , 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.

[Orrex]

54. I continue to disagree with that characterization

It is indeed likely that we will see (or have already endured) mission-creep with this program, and if such over-reach has occurred then it needs to be pursued, but that's not the essence of the issue.

It may also be that they found a judge willing to rubber-stamp their warrants, but the same can be said about any investigative process. It's distasteful, that that's likewise not the essence of the issue.

It is, literally, like getting a search warrant for a company operating toll roads, and then claiming that this warrant grants legal authority to search every privately owned vehicle in America.

I disagree. It is more like contacting the private company that operates a toll road and asking that company to document which cars use the road, how long they use it, and for how long. It has nothing to do with the contents of any individual vehicle.

[stevenleser]

43. The police can't. But the Feds can if they have a FISA warrant for it. nt

[Demo_Chris]

50. The change is that they now claim a single nonspecific warrant covers all...

This is not a subtle difference, it's a revolutionary change. We both know it.

Your job and whatever access you have might require you to pretend ignorance, but I am under no such obligation.

[stevenleser]

52. No, you are wrong on all counts. Every appeals court decision on the subject, and there are many

has indicated that the President has the absolute right to conduct surveillance and searches regarding foreign espionage and terrorism.

There is no change here. Decisions going back decades and decades support it. Including US v Duggan of which I have included a snippet below notes this and notes half a dozen to a dozen other appeals court decisions.

This is NOT new, this has been litigated repeatedly since at least the 1960s and probably before.

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court , 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.

[Demo_Chris]

57. Key word there Steve: FOREIGN

The issue here is the blanket spying on Americans. Not foreigners, not American's conspiring with foreigners or suspected of suchy, but regular Americans. And no, the courts have not consistently ruled that the blanket gathering of data on US citizens is okay. Not. Even. Close.

[stevenleser]

42. The President has the absolute right to surveillance in national security situations/purposes

The difference FISA brought was that he had to go through a court to do it just so that the court could see that the ultimate target was a foreign espionage or foreign sponsored or inspired terrorist organization

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/duggan.htm

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith &quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.

I talk about this more here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022981244

[Orrex]

44. Solid info. Thanks!

[treestar]

49. Great information

Interesting that it involved Irish terrorists whose ultimate terrorist acts would not take place in the U.S.

[msanthrope]

46. It depends Orrex. The 4th amendment doesn't apply outside the bounds of

the US. And 'business records' exceptions--i.e. things made with a third party as part of contract do not have the same level of protection that your personal papers in your home do.

The more specific the hypo, the better the answers that can be given.

[Orrex]

48. That's a solid summation of the issue.

Elsewhere in this thread I was asked if we allow this sort of data harvesting, then "where does it end?"

I answered: It should end with the awareness that a commercial relationship between two parties does not necessarily enjoy the same protections as a locked box kept under your bed.

It seems that you and I are on the same page in that regard; privately-held information is fundamentally diffferent from data routed through a third party.

Thanks for your input!

[octoberlib]

56. Interesting and informative thread. Thanks for the info, everybody! nt

[GeorgeGist]

58. Verizon isn't the government.

Yet.