To the 158 people who voted "If you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" in yesterday's poll, how about letting the Government mount surveillance cameras in your homes to make sure you're not doing anything illegal? Or fly drones around your home to peer in the windows?
"Are you effin' nuts Mr Heininger", you ask, "that's a serious invasion of privacy!".
If you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?
Anyone wanna bet that something embarrassing about this judge shows up in the Lamestream press soon? And if the US Supreme Court decides to look at it, there will also be something about a Supreme Court Justice.
The Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." has privacy written all over it.
Yes, you are completely right in that sense. However, the dictionary defines secure as "free from or not exposed to danger or harm." The NSA does have access to our phone records, however, unless you are doing something that the NSA deems suspicious or dangerous, they may not interfere. Before that point you are not exposed to any danger or harm which must occur before you can claim a place of insecurity. I would like to make it clear that I am in no way, shape or form defending the NSA. I am simply trying to defend the "original intent" of all framers of the United States constitution and what they meant.
Absolutely yes. To the 158
Absolutely yes.
To the 158 people who voted "If you're not doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" in yesterday's poll, how about letting the Government mount surveillance cameras in your homes to make sure you're not doing anything illegal? Or fly drones around your home to peer in the windows?
"Are you effin' nuts Mr Heininger", you ask, "that's a serious invasion of privacy!".
If you're not doing anything wrong, what's the problem?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZluzt3H6tk
Anyone wanna bet that
Anyone wanna bet that something embarrassing about this judge shows up in the Lamestream press soon? And if the US Supreme Court decides to look at it, there will also be something about a Supreme Court Justice.
Death by sudden illness or
Death by sudden illness or freak accident is just as plausible, Dave.
yeah. like the Rolling Stone
yeah. like the Rolling Stone reporter
http://www.politico.com/magaz
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/nsa-panel-report-snowden…
Well, if we're talking
Well, if we're talking "un-constitutionality," lets discuss the fact that the constitution does not say the word privacy once in it.
The Fourth Amendment, "The
The Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ..." has privacy written all over it.
Yes, you are completely right
Yes, you are completely right in that sense. However, the dictionary defines secure as "free from or not exposed to danger or harm." The NSA does have access to our phone records, however, unless you are doing something that the NSA deems suspicious or dangerous, they may not interfere. Before that point you are not exposed to any danger or harm which must occur before you can claim a place of insecurity. I would like to make it clear that I am in no way, shape or form defending the NSA. I am simply trying to defend the "original intent" of all framers of the United States constitution and what they meant.