NSLs: Our government going too far?

[megabyte]

Well while I am unable to disclose which agency I work for, I can assure you there is "watchers over the watchers" but this isn't that Will Smith movie, it's a tad more complicated than that. As for the invasion of privacy, unless you fit the demographic of persons of interest, you have nothing to worry about, it's more of a select few.

The document that was from was the Patriot Act, Rev. 9th Mar, 2007.

[megabyte]

Follow-up post: I will not openly post demographics, but if you would like I will give you examples via PM if you would like.

[Misterjingles]

That's fine. Dammit, since when did the NSA start posting here? THIS IS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROPERTY D: :licks forums: Nah jk, but it'd be interesting to see though.

[megabyte]

lol @NSA. I said this WASN'T Enemy of the State ><

[aurik]

Hi there

[megabyte]

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.

[Halleberry]

Everyone who has posted has made good points, but the fact of the matter is the current adminstration fucked up big time. They exploited the system and really discredited America beyond my own personal expectations. America is a great country, that was founded on great ideals, some of them have changed, some still need to change, but one thing i think America should never change, is our freedom. Privacy and laws that state you must go through the right order of actions to obtain information about individuals should never be compromised. This adminstration already abused the system that was in place, and we let it happen. By allowing them to inact more "securities" we are just setting ourselves up for some real big brother shit, which could be (and most likely will) exploited by an even more corrupt president.

I understand the logic if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't oppose, but that's bullshit. this countries sole reason for existance was so the people could be free, and that the government would never have too much control over them. If you want someone watching your every IM, text or xbox live chat move to another country. America is home of the free and we should keep it that way.

[DarktaruFM]

Well while I am unable to disclose which agency I work for, I can assure you there is "watchers over the watchers" but this isn't that Will Smith movie, it's a tad more complicated than that. As for the invasion of privacy, unless you fit the demographic of persons of interest, you have nothing to worry about, it's more of a select few.

The document that was from was the Patriot Act, Rev. 9th Mar, 2007.

isnt that racial bias?

[Jeryhn]

Those who speak out against the Patriot Act obviously have something to hide or are involved in illegal activity.

brb, writing down osama's new cell number

[aurik]

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.

Hi there.

[megabyte]

Not racist, based on location.

[megabyte]

Edit: Text deleted and public link posted.

[megabyte]

Edit: Text deleted and public link posted.

[megabyte]

Edit: Text deleted and public link posted.

[megabyte]

Edit: Text deleted and public link posted.

[Jeryhn]

Grats on being able to copy+paste. Don't you think a link would have been more effective so I could have read this at my lesiure rather than me having to press Page Down like 8 times?

[megabyte]

Edit: Text deleted and public link posted.

[megabyte]

Maybe, but I will need to find a public site that has the document..

brb -.-

[aurik]

From ACLU.org

Is Section 215 Constitutional?

* Normally, the government cannot effect a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. Section 215 violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to effect Fourth Amendment searches without a warrant and without showing probable cause.
o The violation of the Fourth Amendment is made more egregious by the fact that Section 215 might be used to obtain information about the exercise of First Amendment rights. For example, the FBI could invoke Section 215 to require a library to produce records showing who had borrowed a particular book or to produce records showing who had visited a particular web site.
o Section 215 might also be used to obtain material that implicates privacy interests other than those protected by the First Amendment. For example, the FBI could use Section 215 to obtain medical records.
* The provision violates the First Amendment by prohibiting those served with Section 215 orders from disclosing that fact to others, even where there is no real need for secrecy.
* The provision violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to investigate U.S. persons, including American citizens, based in part on their exercise of First Amendment activity, and by authorizing the FBI to investigate non-U.S. persons based solely on their exercise of First Amendment activity.
* The provision violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by failing to require that those who are the subject of Section 215 orders be told that their privacy has been compromised.

[Scythiroth]

This page sucks now. ~_~ Done reading this topic til it hits page 3. >_>