Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 23:06:19 -0400
"Steven Zebrowski" <szebro1@gl.umbc.edu> replied to:
>> Are you kidding here? You wouldn't have a problem with the
>> government (or other agencies) having the right to poke around on your
>> computer without having to justify their search beforehand? I would.
>
>Not kidding at all. It wouldn't bother me. What are they
>going to see? Me asking my girlfriend how her day was.
>Email from my dad asking me if I can go to a ball game
>sometime. Ytsejam digests (and if they saw something they
>didn't like on the 'jam, I'm confident that *I* wouldn't be
>the one they'd come after).
>
Perhaps it wouldn't bother you, but it might bother someone
who writes about private (but legal) matters. Why should they be
subject to search without probable cause?
>> It's also illegal in the US according to our consitution's fourth
>> amendment:
>
>Don't even get me started on the Bill of Rights. I stand
>behind it in principle, of course, but over the past 30
>years (a little more than all my life, so far) it has not
>done as much to protect law-abiding citizens as it has to
>protect criminals. Klan meetings in the name of Free
>Assembly. Racist and xenophobic propaganda in the name of
>Free Speech. It makes me sick.
>
Last I checked, meeting and talking about distasteful subjects
was not a crime. We already have laws to deal with any KKK or other
racist who hurts someone or damages something not their own. You can't
legislate away someone's racism just by making a law to stop them from
talking about it. They'll just take the meetings and propaganda
underground. At least when it's aboveground, others can reply to
the propaganda with facts and opposing opinions.
>> "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."
>
>There are many operative words in there, but let me point
>out a couple in particular: UNREASONABLE. PROBABLE. If the
>right to privacy is guaranteed ABSOLUTELY, then by the time
>anyone determines whether a search is reasonable or cause is
>probable IT'S TOO LATE.
>
The right to privacy is not guaranteed "absolutely" with the
fourth amendment. It protects what it says: against unreasonable
searches without probable cause. The police can't storm your house
without a reason that a judge has agreed with. These kinds of checks and
balances are throughout our legal system and help prevent abuse of power.
BTW, today the police are having no problems jailing more people
than ever before even *with* those pesky warrants.
>> A country where the government can monitor its people at whim
>> and act on what it finds is heading toward Orwellian abuse.
>
>Orwellian, yes. Abuse? According to whom/what? The
>Constitution? The Constitution is an archaic document
>written by slaveowners who have been dead for 200 years.
>The country has changed in that time. The Bill of Rights
>should change, too.
>
As I assume you realize, the constitution can be changed.
The people who wrote it knew they weren't perfect and they knew times
would change and the constitution can change as well, if necessary.
It's been modified 27 times so far (counting 10 for the Bill of Rights).
>What is everyone so ashamed of?
>
You don't have to be ashamed to desire that the police not
have the ability to barge into your house at their whim.
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:07:30 EST