The internet TCP/IP renders the 4th Amendment meaningless.

[denem]

As long as the 4th Amendment is understood not to apply to searches 'outside' the United States, it does not apply in any meaningful sense to the internet. TCP/IP by definition knows no boundaries.

[left on green only]

1. Interesting Hypothesis And It Sounds Good To Me

Would you like to argue that one in front of Tony The Scab?

[denem]

2. The internet cannot be divided into domestic and foreign in any meaningful way.

That is the truth.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. The INTERNET isn't the issue. The ISSUE is how the American Government treats it's citizens.

Keep trying.

[ManiacJoe]

3. The distribution of the IP addresses

does tend to be geographic. However, the lines tend to get blurry due to the lack of unused addresses in the current blocks.

[denem]

4. Traffic routed outside the US, intercepted outside the US,

is AFAIK not subject to the 4th amendment. And ... the NSA 'owns' the routers.

[ManiacJoe]

5. Correct.

I apologize for not being clearer. I was addressing your comment "TCP/IP by definition knows no boundaries."

[denem]

7. OK, yes I understand now.

I apologize for not being clearer as well. Yes, IP addresses are geographically defined, even if the traffic between them is not.

[ManiacJoe]

27. Generally the traffic is geographic also.

Internet traffic takes the shortest route, or otherwise the path of least resistance. If both end points are domestic, the data packets will stay domestic unless there is infrastructure damage that needs to be routed around.

[cherokeeprogressive]

6. ProSense and Cali_D are buying shit like this ALL DAY LONG.

[denem]

8. If you have a rebuttal - please go ahead.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. Okay, I'll play... I'm a FUCKING AMERICAN CITIZEN. The FUCKING AMERICAN GOVERNMENT must abide by

The Fourth Amendment EACH AND EVERY TIME IT LOOKS IN MY DIRECTION.

Get that?

[denem]

13. And your internet traffic, including VOIP, travels outside the US,

where the courts have ruled searches and interceptions are not subject to the 4th amendment. That's the point.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Fine. In your zeal to protect The President, you have declared the Fourth Amendment MEANINGLESS.

Yeah, I'm not thinking that's gonna fly.

[denem]

17. I'm not looking to protect the President, what I am saying is

if the application of the 4th amendment ends at US boundaries, the internet respects no national boundaries, and leaves the 4th moot.

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Here's the deal. No matter where the internet begins or ends, what's important is where

the US GOVERNMENT jurisdiction begins AND ends.

No matter how important it is to you that the Fourth Amendment be disregarded, it's not happenin'.

[cherokeeprogressive]

10. NOTHING IN THE FUCKING WORLD renders the Fourth Amendment meaningless in regards to how

the US government treats it's citizens.

Get THAT?

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. I'm waiting.

[denem]

14. If it's outside the US, the 4th is not applicable.

And internet routing will take your communications outside the US, yes even US VOIP to US VOIP.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. Wow. Have you called CBS, ABC, NBC, or any of the OTHER networks with this?

Because it puts SO many issues to bed it's not funny.

[denem]

20. What do you think the NSA is doing, sniffing optic fibre around the world,

controlling the routers, running everything through dictionary. I can see it now: oh this packet might have originated in the US, better get a warrant. Ya think?

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. FLASH: The NSA is "controlling the routers".

Think this is what the US Government wants the world to know?

[denem]

24. Yes - thats the point.

Rerouting traffic is not in itself an search. Additional legislation could make it so, but it is not so without a ruling by SCOTUS.

[magellan]

18. Then what's all the hooplah about the NSA determining

...whether a target is domestic or foreign? Do they bother to do this or not? Because header info will easily clarify where an email originated.

[denem]

26. If it originated in the US, but was intercepted outside the US,

it is not a search subject to the 4th amendment as the law currently stands. There's ample case law here. Look up international telephone communications.

[magellan]

29. It isn't that I don't believe you

And I'm well aware that the NSA is partnered with many agencies around the world who can do the dirty deed for them, or on their own.

I'm just growing ever more incensed by the immensity of the oppressive grasp they have on all of us.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

19. Not on any kind of normal basis it won't

The packet will take the shortest route and when both endpoints are domestic, the shortest route will almost always dictate that the packets stay within the borders of the US. The traffic could of course be engineered to take a hop out and back, but that would only be done by someone like the NSA, and not by an engineer following best practices.

[denem]

23. Agree. But it's not exactly a secret that the NSA reroutes traffic.

To quote the good Mr. Snowden: "We hack network backbones – like huge internet routers, basically – that give us access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack every single one,"

Hacking a router, would not constitute a search in the normal sense of the word.

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. "the NSA reroutes traffic"

Prove that.

And if you can... billions of people are about to be pissed off.

[denem]

28. Ask Mr Snowden

os wait, you won't have to. He is spilling more beans than vomit at Taco Bell.

[cherokeeprogressive]

30. Haven't heard him say ANYTHING like that. Keep trying.

And by the way... can you point me to his resume? Betcha can't.

[denem]

31. What do you thinking hacking a network backbone means?

A router does not allow direct access to data, you have to re-route it to tap the packets.

[cherokeeprogressive]

32. Still haven't heard him claim what you said.

Maybe you can point me to where he did.

Keeeeeep TRYING.

[denem]

33. How do you get data from a router. You don't.

You re-route the traffic to a transponder.

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. Point me to where Edward Snowden made that statement or stop repeating yourself.

My transponder says "DON'T TRUST THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT, IT'S MINIONS, OR IT'S INTENTIONS".

Right now, you're sounding a lot like someone with nosense or a Democrat from Cali.

[denem]

35. If you don't understand how the internet operates,

nor what the hardware does, then keep going about how the 4th amendment applies all you want, from you citadel of ignorance. Good night to you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. Good night to you too. Keep living in you citadel of righteousness, no matter how it reeks.

Big Brother is proud of you tonight. You sat in front of you keyboard and defended him with all you zeal.

Maybe you'll get you medal soon.

And by the way, I still think you need to contact you local networks... You onto something here.

[JimDandy]

37. Using your logic, the NSA could deliberately route

out of country all phone calls and all digital communications of any kind that originate in the U.S., with the sole purpose being to deliberately force all U.S. citizen's communications to not be subject to the protections of the 4th Amendment.

It is gut wrenching to even imagine that kind of program being perpetrated against all of us.

If true, that would make everyone who is knowingly involved in such a scheme down right evil and I wouldn't be surprised if American citizens literally got up in arms about being set up like that. That could easily become the "perfect storm" event wherein people of every political persuasion end up banding together to oppose it's continuation.

I am hoping your logic is incorrect and a scheme like that is technologically impossible.

[denem]

38. Technically, it's quite feasible route almost all traffic out of the US,

in practice, they wouldn't bother. Best practice is to assume all telecommunications traffic goes through the NSA.

[JimDandy]

39. If they bothered to

do so, it would make NSA access to our communications repugnant but legal, right? Secretly grabbing it illegally potentially exposes the NSA to problems that would be very hard to avoid because of the millions of contractors with secret clearance who could make potential whistleblowers.

Wonder if every piece of private data bouncing off U.S. satellites is considered going out of country?

ETA: Because every digital communication is composed of multiple packets, each of which could take a different route to get to their final destination, the only way the NSA can be assured that an entire digital message/call from a U.S. citizen is legally captured, is to make sure that every packet is forced out of country.