Senate bill to enhance US Citizen privacy rights rewritten to do the exact opposite.

[Deleted]

Our judicial process has many layers and protections to prevent wrongful convictions.

Just because I saw this a while ago:

A 1996 study by the Ohio State University Criminal Justice Research Center estimated that about 10,000 people in the United States are wrongfully convicted of serious crimes every year, largely because of eyewitness misidentification.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wrong...2#.UK0GoIYY2-U

I'm pretty sure if any protections you have can be undone by someone saying "no your honor, it was him that did it", they aren't great to begin with.

[Themius]

I don't know if this is good or a bad thing.

Some companies/organizations shouldn't be allowed without a search warrant.

Also, this part just baffled me.



I still don't know if this is good or not, but doing this without saying anything to the owner is just bad.

You don't know whether it's good or bad for a bunch of government agencies to have access to everything you do online and read your emails on a whim? My... how interesting.

[Beefhammer]

An email is no different than a phone call in terms of privacy. Yet there are laws regarding wiretapping for law enforcement.

---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 11:58 PM ----------



Well our 4th Amendment is supposed to prevent law enforcement agencies (such as the FBI) from snooping around in private spheres such as your home, phone, bank accounts, email or other such activities without a warrant obtained by a judge.

The reason is because if a police officer wants to find you having done some sort of crime, he'll almost certainly find it unless prevented by such laws.

Exactly. And to those saying it could hinder a LEAs chances to capture someone is bull. All they need to do is to put in a phone call, or even text a judge to get the a warrant. It can be printed up and delivered as they are making a bust. If were that far in the investigation. Again, it takes less than 5 min to get a warrant these days that is not an issue. It is the fear mongers that want us to believe that terrorism is this big problem which it is not.

Which country is paralyzed by the fear of an attack? The US. Which country enacted a law that takes away its protected and guaranteed civil rights in the name of fighting terrorism? That's right, the US. Whose airports are a mess and full of delays so because of cavity searches and shoe removals, and even created an industry for full body scanners that don't detect half the stuff it should? Right again. The US.

No other country in the world, many of them who have far more regular terrorism attacks in their boundaries have these issues. They understand it is a bunch of fools that really do no harm and are not worth the time of day to discuss. People in the US should pay attention to this. Next thing you know you will be like cold war Russia, where you have to tow the government line or be taken away, watched at every corner, spied on by your own government because they need to find terrorists to wage this silly war against. The early 20th century Russians didn't think something like that would happen to them. History repeats itself over and over for those that refuse to pay attention.

[Deleted]

You don't know whether it's good or bad for a bunch of government agencies to have access to everything you do online and read your emails on a whim? My... how interesting.

How would I know?

It's not like I live in the USA.

[Amavesta]

But why would this be bad? Unless the cop is, somehow, corrupted and mentally unstable and wants to ruin your life?

It sets precedent. When one right is eroded, others are soon to follow. Ever heard of secret police?

Currently before someone can go looking through our stuff, they have to have probable cause/evidence and prove it to a Judge. This is a form of protection from precisely the above type of circumstance, and also against accusations by other people that may have no basis, or are just out to cause trouble.

It's also just plain wrong. You wouldn't go digging through someones things without their permission, would you? They'd be offended and angry, however if you had asked first they would likely acquiesce. It's especially bad when you don't know that person or why they are doing it. With a warrant to search, you are clearly told why. It may be on the spot, but you are notified. You wouldn't necessarily like it, but you know they have probable cause and have gone through all the legal channels to obtain permission.

[Themius]

How would I know?

It's not like I live in the USA.

It doesn't matter if you live in the USA or not.

[bergmann620]

I know how people like to go on and on on both sides of any slippery slope, but... When it comes to our rights, I just don't see how going backwards serves any interest, public or private.

We all need to keep in mind, when considering expanding the powers of the government, that, while laws or powers might be designed with good intent, the road to hell is paved with the same, but it still ends in hell. Further, when the pendulum swings the other way in terms of the party in power, do you trust them with these powers?

[Deadvolcanoes]

Just because I saw this a while ago:

A 1996 study by the Ohio State University Criminal Justice Research Center estimated that about 10,000 people in the United States are wrongfully convicted of serious crimes every year, largely because of eyewitness misidentification.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wrong...2#.UK0GoIYY2-U

I'm pretty sure if any protections you have can be undone by someone saying "no your honor, it was him that did it", they aren't great to begin with.

That Ohio study is probably the worst study I've ever read. It's based on nothing but guesses from about 200 judges, prosecutors, lawyers, etc. No facts, just guesses.

"The survey asked respondents to estimate the prevalence of wrongful conviction in the United States. About 72 percent estimated that less than 1 percent -- but more than zero -- of convictions were of innocent people."

And even if it were true, then the problem has to do with misinformed eyewitnesses, not unwarranted email searches.