Message from @OperatorGhost6
Discord ID: 798734845835870218
@Tresed, you just advanced to level 1!
Do they still need a warrant for wiretapping then?
I will have to read the article and the case. But I am sure its about the expectation of privacy on the internet.
I could be wrong but I dont think that article has to do with wiretapping.... rather they just get information on the websites you have been visiting.
Still sketchy as fuck, IMO. We SHOULD be able to have some expectation of privacy .....
If I were the arguing the case I would suggest that the internet is now a means of communication similar to picking up your phone and calling or texting a friend - And they definitely have to get a warrant for that sort of stuff.
Or writing a letter. You can see who’s it for but can’t see the contents without a warrant
Correct.
So I bet they are trying to say that that you have no expectation of privacy in regards to your "google searches" and the sites that you visit. But that you do have an expectation of privacy in your email.
But then what about direct messenger or groups like this?
Obviously, when you post a comment on a public website or on a FB timeline then you know going in that lots of people and maybe even people you don't know are likely to see it - so that I can see... but to track the sites you visit? I don't share my "google searches" with everyone and I think its reasonable for me to expect my privacy in that regard.
Unless you make your comments that only your friends see it but they might grant others to privilege of seeing it...or if you are a member of a closed or public group. The list of members can be visible to anyone
I think there needs to be a new set of policies, protocols, and procedures that meet the expressions people desire to communicate according to their intuitions on what is private, semi-pubic, and public - and somehow still manage protections for those that cannot make mature decisions.
I agree
While that is true.... generally speaking when we have a conversation with even just 1 person it lowers our expectation of privacy. The only time this doesnt apply is if you are talking to your attorney.
BUT.... just because we have a conversation with a person does NOT mean that we should expect zero privacy (like the telephone or email example).
So, of course, law enforcement could question a person that you had a conversation with and that person could be called to testify to what you told them - but to me that is NOT the same as a person typing something into their search bar.
And in many, if not most states, a person can record a conversation that they are engaged in without your knowledge.
And when you mail someone a letter that letter then belongs to that person and they can choose to share it with anyone, including law enforcement. But again... that involves you knowingly giving information to another person, lowering your expectation of privacy.
@JD~Jordan I am aware of those parameters in the Law concerning communications. Comm Theory is one of my majors. The law has never been realistic in the region of privacy, which it has very vaguely defined in only a few landmark cases. I have considered the issue, and come up with wording as follows:
All human beings have the right to privacy, which shall be the authority to determine those things concerning themselves and their dependents in regards to their associations with persons, places, things, ideas, the use of their time, the locations where they spend their time, the purposes for which they act or choose not to act, and the manner of their action to which the general public shall have access to know.
No human being shall be denied privacy, save when they explicitly waiving such right in specificity, regardless of age, disability, familial status, genetic information, national origin, pregnancy, political standing, race, religion, sex, social standing, or veteran status except when such privacy shall deny or obstruct the right to life, liberty, or property of another.
To that end, they may make public that which they choose to publish in whatsoever manner and may retain as private that which they do not consent to have published.
Further, a human being shall maintain that right to privacy through the due process of law in the face of any action that may affect their life, liberty, or property the actionable results of which has not become a public record upon conviction.
Nor shall any right to privacy interfere with a parent's, custodian's, or guardian's right to know the events taking place in their child's or dependent's life or the life of one for whom they have a reasonable expectation of personal concern.
Nevertheless, no such rights to privacy shall prevail for those aiding, abetting, or participating in treason, insurgency, or war against the United States, its members, nor its allies.
While I certainly agree with the bulk of this comment, we are denied privacy rights all the time.
In the US we start with the 4th Amendment and work from there. The Courts have consistently ruled that the test should be whether or not the person should have an expectation of privacy in the given situation.
One tactic used by police when investigating a particular person is to wait until they put their trash on the curbed to be picked up and then they grab it and go through it. The logic is that your expectation of privacy is almost none in that situation.
It also works on a scale. For example, a person would have more of an expectation of privacy inside their home, than in their car. There is some level of expectation in both, but there is more in the home.
We slide further down the scale when we compare the expectation of privacy in your own vehicle vs a cab that you are in or an Uber.
So, now we need to start figuring out what level of expectation of privacy we have on the internet. Logically, the same scale applies. The expectation of privacy is higher in an email than in a chat group.
This particular case, noted above, is trying to determine what our level of privacy expectation should be when surfing the web.
just sent too me 40 min ago
there you go
@OperatorGhost6 deleted, Facebook, Twitter, Google, & Instagram...i don't need them. They have competitors! Started & completed all this today
its cool just putting it out there
it is very real
it will come out
Wish I could, can’t remember all my passwords
LoL I ran into that problem
italy gate
real patriots are all over this uncovering the gabage msm is telling you
Checkmate.
Ready for Yeetaly
yep
what not in crayon?
hahah funny
they like the yellow ones
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9139059/FBI-arrests-New-York-man-connection-Capitol-riots.html They have the footage of Officer Sicknick's eventual fatal injury. Looks like a lot of people were potentially involved in this.
steop the steal
stop the steal
stop the steal
watch this garbage