|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/29/2007 : 19:37:11
|
Does the government under the constitution have the right to collect and demand data from citizens without cause? And, if no; what in the original contract prevents them from doing so?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 19:51:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Does the government under the constitution have the right to collect and demand data from citizens without cause? |
Trick question. The Constitution doesn't grant the government any rights at all.
But seriously, the courts have held that the limitations on the government to collect and demand data about a person are grounded entirely on a person's "expectation of privacy." NOT because the Fourth Amendment says "effects," which you bizarrely choose to think means "essences." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 19:54:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Does the government under the constitution have the right to collect and demand data from citizens without cause? |
Trick question. The Constitution doesn't grant the government any rights at all.
But seriously, the courts have held that the limitations on the government to collect and demand data about a person are grounded entirely on a person's "expectation of privacy." NOT because the Fourth Amendment says "effects," which you bizarrely choose to think means "essences."
|
Where than is the "expectation of privacy" derived?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 20:37:17 [Permalink]
|
Dave, no where in that text does it tell us were the "expectation of privacy" is derived; only that it exists.
The only thing about data collection is the court ruling stating that fingerprinting is not allowed on a "free person".
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/29/2007 : 23:58:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, no where in that text does it tell us were the "expectation of privacy" is derived; only that it exists. |
Actually, it does mention Katz v. US, but not directly on the derivation question.
Now, if you'll remember in chat, I only brought up the phrase "right to privacy" because you were arguing that "democracy" doesn't appear in the Constitution. Neither "democracy" nor "right to privacy" appear in the document, they're both emergent properties of the other statements in it.
If you'd like to argue that the "right to privacy" doesn't exist, as Justice Hugo Black did, then there's no point in your assertion that "effects" means "essences," because to Black, "effects" meant "personal belongings." If you'd like to argue otherwise, then you'll note that nowhere in the opinions in Katz v. US does the expectation of privacy argument hinge upon the definition of the word "effects," either explicitly or implicitly.
You're out of luck, Jerome. There is no case law in which jurists found a need to redefine "effects" to be anything other than "personal, moveable belongings" in order to derive certain rights of privacy from the Fourth Amendment. If you still think that's the case, then you're going to have to cough up actual court documents saying so, instead of a dictionary definition published 200+ years after the Amendment (about which, you're still wrong).| The only thing about data collection is the court ruling stating that fingerprinting is not allowed on a "free person". |
Then you've simply ignored all the text in there about drawing blood, removing bullets and sobriety checkpoints. Why would one draw blood if not for the information contained therein? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 09:04:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, no where in that text does it tell us were the "expectation of privacy" is derived; only that it exists.
The only thing about data collection is the court ruling stating that fingerprinting is not allowed on a "free person".
|
Comes as an expectation derived from the prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 09:16:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, no where in that text does it tell us were the "expectation of privacy" is derived; only that it exists.
The only thing about data collection is the court ruling stating that fingerprinting is not allowed on a "free person".
|
Comes as an expectation derived from the prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure.
|
Why would an agency of government be exempt? (i.e. FBI data collection)
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 10:34:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, no where in that text does it tell us were the "expectation of privacy" is derived; only that it exists.
The only thing about data collection is the court ruling stating that fingerprinting is not allowed on a "free person".
|
Comes as an expectation derived from the prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure.
|
Why would an agency of government be exempt? (i.e. FBI data collection)
|
They aren't.
Data that you willingly give to institutions is considered non-private data and the government can request records. They cannot break into your house without a warrant (no matter what Bush says) without having 4th Amendment problems. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 11:21:25 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer, can data collected for a prescribed reason be disseminated throughout the government for other purpose not known by the individual?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 11:38:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, can data collected for a prescribed reason be disseminated throughout the government for other purpose not known by the individual? |
Nice change of subject. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 11:39:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, can data collected for a prescribed reason be disseminated throughout the government for other purpose not known by the individual?
|
Per the Privacy Act of 1976, only on a limited basis. And, no, the government doesn't need to tell you what other agency has been supplied with your data from one that you know about.
A couple of for instances.
A US Military enlistee has their data automatically transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs without notification.
The US Military gets listing of high school seniors from any school that takes federal funds without the parents being notified.
The IRS transfers data to the Justice Department on those people who are under investigation and for which the Justice department has a valid warrant from any court including the FISLA court.
The IRS transfers data to the Social Security Administration about the earnings of seniors who have filed for SS benefits without notification to the seniors.
Data sharing happens quite often. Some require warrants, but not all courts require the notification of the person being investigated.
I would suggest that you do some reading on COINTELPRO, the Privacy Act of 1976, American history circa 1960-1975, and SCOTUS rulings.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 12:11:01 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer, would it be illegal for the White house to have FBI files without reason?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 12:13:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Valiant Dancer, can data collected for a prescribed reason be disseminated throughout the government for other purpose not known by the individual? |
Nice change of subject.
|
No, this is taking the subject back to the beginning. Conversations are not a back and forth on a single narrowly defined question.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 15:42:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
No, this is taking the subject back to the beginning. Conversations are not a back and forth on a single narrowly defined question. |
Except that you're refusing to acknowledge your mistake regarding the word "effects." I wouldn't give a hoot about you changing the subject (changing it back, if you must) if I had any indication that you'd finish the part of the conversation you were having just a few posts ago. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 15:52:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
No, this is taking the subject back to the beginning. Conversations are not a back and forth on a single narrowly defined question. |
Except that you're refusing to acknowledge your mistake regarding the word "effects." I wouldn't give a hoot about you changing the subject (changing it back, if you must) if I had any indication that you'd finish the part of the conversation you were having just a few posts ago.
|
I do not think I am wrong, so why would I admit this? Do you remember why the the question of a constitutional right to not have data collected sprang from?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Right to Ones Essence?
