The 4th Amendment by Wulfenstar

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The 4th Amendment

POSTED BY: WULFENSTAR
UPDATED: Friday, February 12, 2010 09:55
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 740
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, February 12, 2010 6:04 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

While I spend a lot of time around here arguing for the 2nd Amendment (and how it must be insured and strengthened), I also deeply care about the 4th.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html

Make no mistake, as technology becomes more prevalent, and our use of it is higher, we will lose a basic, fundamental right.

The right to be private in your affairs.

As both sides of the governmental pendulum have shown a happy willingness to destroy this right, I can only hope that a 3rd party will rise to this fight.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 7:14 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

So.... no comments?

Guess people are too busy over at the other post...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 8:24 AM

MINCINGBEAST

If you care about the Fourth Amendment perhaps you'd be pleased to know that current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has a long track record of arguing against the exclusionary rule, and he is not alone. The exlcusionary rule? You know, that pesky little rule that vindicates the Fourth Amendment by preventing illegally seized evidence from being used at trial?

See, the exclusionary rule is a relatively recent development, and we did just find without it for two centuries, thank you very much. And also, our law should be stuck in the 18th century--because history ended in the 18th century when the constituion was drafted.

Many conservatives actually believe that the appropriate remedy for a 4th Amendment violation is...a private law suit...and we all know how well those go against government entities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 8:25 AM

MINCINGBEAST

Oh, and also, anytime you'd care to argue over the 2nd Amendment, I'd be happy to oblige. That is one fight I never get tired of.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 8:38 AM

KIRKULES

Seems to me the current Supreme Court has tried to restore some of our 4th Amendment rights with it’s recent decision regarding warrant less searches of automobiles. http://www.scotusblog.com/2009/04/a-new-rule-for-warrantless-car-searc
hes/

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 8:45 AM

MINCINGBEAST

restore your 4th amendment rights? interesting. not quite sure what you mean by that, and i'm not sure if I'd agree that rights are something that can be restored.

Neat cite to the case, though. Gant is actually a pretty narrow decision. if anything, it contracts an often abused exception to the warrant requirement. Moral of the story: leave your cocaine in the trunk.

doesn't make me too hopeful for the future of the 4th, which to me is the increasingly pressure from technology which will problematize the definition of what is a search, and the survival of the exclusionary rule.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 12, 2010 9:55 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Technology is a double edged sword through, which is one reason a lot of american software is deliberately crippled by hard coding backdoors into it and then making it illegal to remove them...

There's quite a few hacks based on that, and the first time the FBI got a cell phone provider to put a back door in for them, back when cell phones were in their infancy, hackers exploiting it bankrupted the company, it was a total failure, and utter disaster - to which the alphabet morons reacted very predictably, choosing to repeat the same idiocy ad-infintum.

In case you ever wondered, that's why american security software ain't worth a shit, and you have to buy from the netherlands or the soviets.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Security-vendors-to-block-po
lice-hacks/0,130061744,339295373,00.htm

Kaspersky won't pre-include backdoors, Symantec will, and how fast do you think the blackhat assholes reverse engineered that shitty little trojan the feds use and used it to slip right past Norton (which is a huge resource hog anyways) while laughing up their sleeve at the feds paving the way and laying out a red carpet ?

And of course, the problem with such "sneak n peek" tactics is they wind up more "sneak n PLANT" tactics, kinda like forfeiture happy cops are notorious for, and since there's no witnesses and no record, what, really, is your defense save to keep the bastards OUT of your stuff in the first place.

Oh, and don't trust commercial encryption neither, cause that comes with gaping wide loopholes (making it fairly useless) too, some of the lesser known "fine print" of shit like the DMCA and other acts will make it abundantly clear what the requirements are if you can chainsaw your way through the legalese.

Only plus is the average technical incompetence of the common jackboot, who is gonna have no clue what to do when they run up against off-brand, open source, or something their little master key trick doesn't work on.

Any blade has TWO edges, remember that.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE