Re: [privacy] Surveillance Showdown -- Thank the "privacy" nuts

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 9/24/07, Richard M. Smith <rms () computerbytesman com> wrote:
> Warrantless surveillance is also constitutional. The Fourth Amendment
> prohibits only "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Although today's
> privacy advocates routinely claim that warrantless searches are inherently
> unreasonable, that position is insupportable. The Supreme Court has
> repeatedly approved numerous warrantless searches, balancing the
> government's interests against the relevant privacy expectations. Thus
> drivers can be subjected to sobriety checkpoints and international travelers
> are liable to search at the border.
>
> The key in such cases has generally been the presence or absence of a
> "reasonable expectation of privacy." If there is no reasonable expectation
> of privacy associated with a particular location or activity, then a
> warrantless search is not unreasonable. Whether Americans have a reasonable
> expectation that their international communications -- which may be routed
> through any number of foreign countries and are routinely subject to capture
> by foreign intelligence services -- will not be incidentally intercepted by
> the U.S. government is debatable. But foreign nationals communicating
> abroad have no reasonable expectation of privacy vis-à-vis the NSA simply
> because their conversations are electronically transmitted through American
> switching stations.


Two points I'll make:
1) The Supreme Court has REPEATEDLY F'ed up these cases. You have every
reason to believe that your car, and your person, is private. Any search of
your car or person without probable cause, a warrant or in the case of
arrest is completely unreasonable. NARC checks are the epitome of fascist
regimes, in my opinion, and have existed for well over the 6 years since
9/11. In fact, I think they became popular during Clinton's regime and why
not, once they know they can burn down your house and murder your children,
and then hide the evidence - all the while claiming some seditious (AND
insidious) drug racket - why not plant some weed on you to take your car?!

2) There is no reasonable expectation of privacy when making a LD call
overseas. One should assume that if your own government isn't listening or
tracking, some other government is. Of note, when I last worked in Sprint's
LD department they must have had 70% of the transatlantic fiber (if not
more, like 90+%). It would be virtually impossible not to use Sprint's
equipment in your monitoring of foreign communications from or to the US, as
described in the article. At least that was the case 10 years ago.

_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
privacy () whitestar linuxbox org
http://www.whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/privacy