Obama / NSA listening to phone calls without warrants

[Darwin333]

A) They aren't listening to anything without a warrant.

B) They supposedly aren't recording anything you said only the date, time, and receiving/incoming phone number.

So I still fail to see the connection.

Your exact question:

Lol, another straw man. I see the problems from these actions what I don't see is the illegality of it.
If no one is actually listening to a recorded call then is it really wire tapping? Don't answer unless you have a court case to back up your opinion (I don't know the answer myself).

He answered your very specific question and you fail to see the connection????

 

[ivwshane]

Your exact question:



He answered your very specific question and you fail to see the connection????

Katz v. US

"The Government's activities in electronically listening to and recording the petitioner's words violated the privacy upon which he justifiably relied while using the telephone booth and thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

The word used was "and" not "or".

Do you think the small words like the ones above matter when it comes to law?

I'll stand by my original comment.

 

[michal1980]

The word used was "and" not "or".

Do you think the small words like the ones above matter when it comes to law?

I'll stand by my original comment.

the government is doing both. recording and listening.

please try to keep up

 

[TerryMathews]

The word used was "and" not "or".

Do you think the small words like the ones above matter when it comes to law?

I'll stand by my original comment.

Why do you think I highlighted the fact that activities is plural in the decision?

Hint: it means something.

 

[ivwshane]

the government is doing both. recording and listening.

please try to keep up

No they are not, please pay attention. The listening supposedly comes after a warrant is issued.

 

[michal1980]

No they are not, please pay attention. The listening supposedly comes after a warrant is issued.

they are. they stated so.

 

[Darwin333]

The word used was "and" not "or".

Do you think the small words like the ones above matter when it comes to law?

I'll stand by my original comment.

And at the very end of the sentence we get this gem:

thus constituted a 'search and seizure' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

A warrant is required for either search or seizure or both, so you are standing at the wrong end of the argument.... again. I honestly can't believe that someone is arguing that the .gov can take anything they want without a warrant as long as they don't look at it. Or are you one of those "they didn't take anything physical" type of people that thinks piracy is perfectly moral because you didn't actually steal any physical property?

So do you think they can take the mail out of your mailbox without a warrant as long as they don't open it? You know, just in case you do something in the future? Actually a better example would be taking your mail and then having a machine open it, make exact duplicates, and then put the original back in your mailbox. But they didn't look at it, scouts honor!

Edit: And yes, I absolutely believe that small words like that matter when it comes to law. Just like the word AND that I pointed out matters when it comes to law, it means that the government not only performed an illegal search but they also performed an illegal seizure. But really, why fuss about the little words mattering when it comes to the .gov following the law when they don't give a fuck about any of the words? For example:

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.

Do you think little words like that matter when it comes to law?

 

[werepossum]

And at the very end of the sentence we get this gem:



A warrant is required for either search or seizure or both, so you are standing at the wrong end of the argument.... again. I honestly can't believe that someone is arguing that the .gov can take anything they want without a warrant as long as they don't look at it. Or are you one of those "they didn't take anything physical" type of people that thinks piracy is perfectly moral because you didn't actually steal any physical property?

So do you think they can take the mail out of your mailbox without a warrant as long as they don't open it? You know, just in case you do something in the future? Actually a better example would be taking your mail and then having a machine open it, make exact duplicates, and then put the original back in your mailbox. But they didn't look at it, scouts honor!

He's one of those people who feel that (D) stands for "Definitely nothing illegal or immoral going on here, no matter what it looks like."

 

[TerryMathews]

Why do you think I highlighted the fact that activities is plural in the decision?

Hint: it means something.

Since you were too stupid to follow this, activities being plural means that they didn't need to be performed in concert in order to be a violation. Both listening and recording were violations, separately.

English. It's important to understand how it works.