Appeals court: Feds need warrants for e-mail

Residenttroll wrote: Who voted for Patriot Act?
These are the 89 U.S. senators who voted in favor of the March 2, 2006 Patriot Act Reauthorizing Act
Obama (D-IL) Yea
Salazar (D-CO) Yea
Reid (D-NV) Yea
Kennedy (D-MA) Yea
Kerry (D-MA) Yea

All true, as it is that a Congress controlled by Democrats was responsible for the original 1986 law as well. However, and on this LJ, you and I will all certainly agree, there was a Republican President who affixed their signature to the bottom of the bill. Bipartisan usurpation of power by the general government that was perpetuated with bipartisan cooperation.

I might add that generally during times of military action one expects there to be some increased level of protections enacted by the federal government. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War, Wilson and FDR had a few actions, including the creation of domestic holding facilities for those of Japanese heritage during WWII, Truman, LBJ, Reagan, Bush and Obama all have their individual contributions as well. When we are actively engaged in a military conflict, wars ended with the creation of the United Nations after all, one expects a certain degree of contraction with regards to their freedoms and their privacy insofar as the national security must be protected. That does not, however, extend to such a degree that we should ever find acceptable the abuse of those rights, such as that which occurred during the Nixon years, ever again.

We should also remember that the ability to nab your emails out of cyberspace as they are being transmitted via microwaves around the globe is not limited to our government alone. Great Britain, Germany, Russia, China, and a host of other governments have that same ability and nothing in this ruling would preclude one of them from grabbing the exact same email and sharing it with the government of this nation, thereby avoiding any necessity for the general government of this nation to seek a warrant for the information your emails contain. Just because your government can't look without a warrant any longer doesn't mean that they are no longer able to glean the same information without seeking the warrant. Just something to keep in mind as you celebrate this latest victory won in the courts.

I have to agree with TowerMonkey on this one. Just because they need it in court now doesn't mean it stops them from reading whatever they like out there on the interwebs. Just means now you need an extra piece of paper to submit them as evidence. Otherwise, if you're a suspect in anything, your stuff gets read and easily. And if they get caught, all that happens to them is a slap with a rolled up newspaper and told "no, bad agent!" and life goes on.


And what Printsmith said more eloquently.

and even though the court has said so, who is bothering to get the extra piece of paper?

and then we will get an opinion from scotus and once again who will bother to get the extra piece of paper?

PrintSmith wrote: I might add that generally during times of military action

Hey Einstein, name a time when we weren't involved in a "military action". I heard you guys were dumb here, I just didn't imagine some of you were this dumb.

Hi VL!

Hey Jerkoff. No one missed you!!! Bye VL, don't let the ddor bang you in the butt!!!! or your head!

Nmysys wrote: Hey Jerkoff. No one missed you!!! Bye VL, don't let the ddor bang you in the butt!!!! or your head!

You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? Then who the hell else are you talking... You talking to me? Well I'm the only one here..Who the f*** do you think you're talkin too?

towermonkey wrote: bomb

We hope that this ruling includes sniffing of our emails.

Jack Booted thugstress

Hiel!