# reading private mail without a warrant



## Amatus

It has come to my attention that George Bush has signed a postal reform bill into law which enables Americans' mail to be read by officials without a warrant.

Apparently, Bush has declared it his right to snoop under emergency conditions.  But what constitutes an 'emergency condition'?  Do Americans, in general, believe in such a 'right'?  Personally, I'd be worried.


----------



## cuchuflete

Amatus,
Can you provide the Bill #?  I'd like to read it before commenting.

If there is such a law, it may be colliding with The Fourth Amendment:

(US Constitution) 





> 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.



You would need to read the case law to find the exceptions—there are some—to the requirement for a warrant.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

cuchuflete said:


> Can you provide the Bill #?  I'd like to read it before commenting.



Here's the article by NY Daily News, who first reported on it. NY Times provide the signing statement (yes, I'm aware I didn't answer your question, but I was unable to find the answer).

Edit: Actually, could this be it?

There was a time I would've been shocked by this.


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

He's defending freedom


----------



## cuchuflete

> The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.
> That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.


_op cit. Daily News article.

_The current President has issued many such "Signing statements".  They have no constitutional basis.  They are statements of his opinion, and lack the weight of law.

Should he try to use such a statement as a justification for any act, I am comfortable that the courts would tell him that he is in violation of the Constitution.   A President cannot legislate.  He cannot *legally* decide which parts of a law he will enforce, and which he will ignore.  Most important, he cannot, by means of a Signing statement, amend a law passed by the Congress.


----------



## danielfranco

Especially magic-tongued Bush.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Cuchu, I so badly wish I could agree and feel that you guys don't have to listen to his ideas an all, but lots of unconstitutional stuff goes on anyway, in emergency conditions.

I remember a woman arguing saying Americans support torture because "They watch 24 and understand when it has to be used", actually comparing a drama to real life!

Looking at the wiretapping/Echelon programme/Guantanamo bay etc

Isn't it irrelevant if it's illegal or not, because he's going to do it anyway?


----------



## cuchuflete

Alex_Murphy said:


> Isn't it irrelevant if it's illegal or not, because he's going to do it anyway?


 We are drifting away from the topic, which was an erroneous statement that a new law gives the government the authority to open people's mail.

With a Democratic party majority in both houses of Congress now, if Bush were to 'authorize' opening mail on the basis of his Signing Statement, he would be inviting impeachment.

Before jumping to any conclusions, do read at least the good wikipedia summary of the Fourth Amendment case law. There are obvious and sensible exceptions to the need for a Warrant.  Bush is playing to his gallery, trying to act tough, and continuing to try to arrogate unconstitutional powers to the executive branch of government.  Congress is likely to make it clear that he cannot do that and get away with it.


----------



## .   1

Amatus said:


> Personally, I'd be worried.


I couldn't give a monkey's toss.
George and John and Tony and their minions are more than welcome to bore themselves to stultification reading my personal correspondence any time they feel the need to waste a few more tax payers' dollars.
I reckon that while they are taking the effort to investigate me they will leave some other poor slob alone.

.,,
Big brother is not that bright


----------



## caballoschica

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16472777/

Here's another source.  

But these "signing statements" do not override the constitution.  He doesn't have his rubber-stamp Congress anymore. They aren't going to be that stupid not to notice these "signing statements".


----------



## cuchuflete

Amatus said:


> It has come to my attention
> 
> 1—that George Bush has signed a postal reform bill into law
> 
> 2—which enables Americans' mail to be read by officials without a warrant.


 _numbering added


_Before we go off half-cocked and start another baseless urban legend,

1- The law specifically prohibits tampering with mail, including any reading of it without judicial authorization;

2-Bush's personal opinions in the Signing Statement do not create any legal right for officials to read Americans' mail.


----------



## JamesM

cuchuflete said:


> Bush is playing to his gallery, trying to act tough, and continuing to try to arrogate unconstitutional powers to the executive branch of government.


 
"arrogate" - what a perfectly placed, perfectly apt word here!  Thanks for that, cuchu - that made my day.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm glad you appreciated it, James.  It just sprang into my head when thinking of W and his style, but now that you have pointed it out, I'm enjoying the unintended pun(s):  Arrogant + Watergate, and the very definition of the verb, which often refers to "warrentless" actions. 



> *Arrogate *–verb (used with object),  -gat·ed, -gat·ing. 1.to claim *unwarrantably* or presumptuously; assume or appropriate to oneself without right:


----------



## TRG

Late last year, congress passed the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act". The new statute contained the following language which the previous version did not: 

_c) The Postal Service shall maintain one or more classes of mail for the transmission of letters sealed against inspection. The rate for each such class shall be uniform throughout the United States, its territories, and possessions. One such class shall provide for the most expeditious handling and transportation afforded mail matter by the Postal Service. No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee._

President Bush's signing statement included the following language:

_The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection._​So we are talking about searches to protect public safety (such as letters believed or known to contain something like anthrax) or searches authorized by other laws.

Some of the foregoing was excerpted from the blog Powerline which you can find here.

There is really nothing here, and the press have manufactured a story out of whole cloth. As usual, nearly everyone here piles on with barely a thought given to what is actually going on. Just stop and think for a moment about what it would take for the POTUS to gain access to someone's mail. With billions of pieces of mail traveling through the system how would he go about selecting those for inspection. I suppose he could staff the post office with spies or just steal it from the mailbox like I would have to do if I wanted to read your mail. Besides, if he were going to do this in violation of public law, why would he announce it ahead of time?


----------



## Etcetera

TRG said:


> L Just stop and think for a moment about what it would take for the POTUS to gain access to someone's mail. With billions of pieces of mail traveling through the system how would he go about selecting those for inspection.


A really good point.
A friend of mine who lives in Romania once sent a parcel (a book of Eminescu) to our mutual friend in Moscow. When the girl received the parcel, she saw that the paper was torn. She's still pretty sure that it was the police that opened her parcel.
It was really unpleasant, to say the least of it.


----------



## cuchuflete

TRG said:


> So we are talking about searches to protect public safety (such as letters believed or known to contain something like anthrax) or searches authorized by other laws.


 Sure, as "construed" by a regime that has had some rather clever interpretations of the scope of its authority to decide what "other laws" mean to the



> Besides, if he were going to do this in violation of public law, why would he announce it ahead of time?



The announcement is political.  It attempts to justify, in advance, bending the laws to suit an administration that has played fast and loose with both laws and facts.

Again, Signing Statements have no legal basis.  Bush has tried to use them to act as if they have the weight of law.
They do not.   The news story is about a President who is acting as if he were an emperor who can rule by edict, with no checks and balances from other branches of government.

The supposedly "new" aspects of the postal law have been around for many decades.  First Class Mail has been protected, legally, from warrantless invasion for many decades.   Find an old copy of the DMM  (Domestic Mail Manual) to verify that.


----------



## .   1

G'day Culturer@s
Do you care if your private mail is being read by Big Brother?
Is allowing Governmental access to private communications likely to make the world a more dangerous place?

Robert


----------



## maxiogee

At present I must assume that all my emails can be accessed and 'read' by who-knows-what computer programs coded to seek out and mark for attention preset words or phrases. I once created a text-encoder for the macintosh which was 'unbreakable' but couldn't see that many people would actually want it.
In this light, and knowing that once I put a letter in to the postal system it ceases to be 'mine' and it isn't yet the recipient's, then I don't see how I can 'care'.


----------



## Outsider

If Big Brother wants to spy on my mail, I want a shot at winning the prize.


----------



## Benjy

Yes it does! One of the most shocking recently pased laws in england to my mind is the one whereby it is a criminal offense to use encryption software and refuse to hand over the encryption key upon demand by the authorities (RIP Act) if you are under suspicion of doing anything! Civil liberty is fast becoming a thing of the past in the UK


----------



## Estiben

My, you do pose interesting questions! Yes, I do mind, but I can't do much about it. I don't personally "allow" the government or anyone else to read my correspondence, but they can. Even if laws are passed forbiding it, people with power and money can often skirt the law. I don't feel I have anything to hide, but what if someone in power takes a dislike to my religion, my ethnicity, or my taste in literature? 

Maybe part of surviving in this world involves being careful of the wordage you use in your communications.  Now that I see that in print, it seems a little paranoid. Well, I guess I will continue to send mail and take my chances. God bless America. (Listening, George W?)


----------



## Paulfromitaly

. said:


> G'day Culturer@s
> Do you care if your private mail is being read by Big Brother?
> Is allowing Governmental access to private communications likely to make the world a more dangerous place?
> 
> Robert



I do care, although there is usually no important information in my emails.
The point is: the Big Brother has very likely been reading every single email we've sent in the last years without having the permission to do it whereas now they just want to seem fair and claim to do it legally.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Of course I'd care. Maybe there's nothing in my mail (or my phone transcripts, or my personal documents, &c) that would cause me any concern, but privacy is a basic civil liberty and a principle that should not be breached.

Will "the world" be a more dangerous place? Well, the country allowing it would at least be. Removal of citizens' privacy (spying) is just one step down the road to authoritarianism.


----------



## maxiogee

Lemminkäinen said:


> Removal of citizens' privacy (spying) is just one step down the road to authoritarianism.



Long-range microphones can pick up a private conversation from quite a distance.
Security "Closed-circuit television" cameras are omnipresent on many city streets and in most stores and public buildings.
Car registration plates can be 'read' by traffic cameras.
Our mobile phones can be used to 'locate' us geographically.
We need photographic ID to fly anywhere.

What does Big Brother not already know about us?


----------



## Outsider

What we need to do is start charging for each performance. Hey, it's free enterprise!


----------



## Lemminkäinen

maxiogee said:


> What does Big Brother not already know about us?



There is a lot of information floating about, yes, which could potentially be used in harmful ways. 
However, letters, phone calls, &c are supposed to be private - I think the situation is a bit different compared to when moving about in the public sphere. 

Here, we have a directorate called _Datatilsynet_ (The Data Inspectorate) which is ensuring enforcement of privacy laws and processing of personal data (e.g. they recently refused SAS to allow fingerprints at check-ins because of issues with their handling of the data). 

I wouldn't want my government to perform random (warrentless) searches of my property (to mention one example), nor would I want them to open my mail.


----------



## mytwolangs

it doesn't bother me because even if it did , what good would it do to get mad?

There are millions of letters and emails floating around at any given moment. They are not going to look thru many, only the most possible ones that would need to be.


----------



## Outsider

You are an optimist. 

Seriously, this is a gold mine for would-be blackmailers who happen to work for the government (and some corporations). I don't like it one bit.


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> The announcement is political. It attempts to justify, in advance, bending the laws to suit an administration that has played fast and loose with both laws and facts.


What political benefit would be gained here by GWB? One would think that if the intrepretation is controversial, they would be well advised to remain silent and just enforce the law as they see fit until someone complains or they are "caught". You must remember that while congress passes laws, it is the job of the executive to enforce the laws and this envariably requires some interpretation on their part. You cannot completely discount the fairness of signing statements because it gives the congress and the people and the courts advance warning of how the exective intends to enforce the law. 



cuchuflete said:


> Again, Signing Statements have no legal basis. Bush has tried to use them to act as if they have the weight of law.
> They do not. The news story is about a President who is acting as if he were an emperor who can rule by edict, with no checks and balances from other branches of government.


 
It would seem that a signing statement is as good as the weight of law until such time as it has been tested in court. As for GWB as tyrannical emperor, where are the victims? Let us hear from them. They must be legion.


----------



## Bienvenidos

So I was discussing this with an acquaintance today and she called me a "stark Republican" but I don't think my party affiliation has anything to do with my opinion (or maybe it does.) 

This bill was made to protect *YOU AND US! *The people of the United States! If you have nothing to hide, then this bill shouldn't bother you. I don't care if the FBI knows that my grandmother just enrolled in a "Yoga for Senior Citizens" class. I don't care if the government knows that I subscribe to my local newspaper. They're trying to protect *ME *and I respect and admire them for that. 

Please don't take this harshly, but I am tired of the liberal media trying to give everyone a million freedoms and then some. It's absolutely crazy. Don't get me started on the flag-burning issue and things like that....

I try to stay out of CD because my political opinions are sometimes considered "too" strong...so please don't take offense to this message.


----------



## .   1

Outsider said:


> Seriously, this is a gold mine for would-be blackmailers who happen to work for the government (and some corporations). I don't like it one bit.


Why?
I have mentally revewied my mail and can find no conspiratorial material?

Robert


----------



## Scrooge

Bienvenidos said:


> So I was discussing this with an acquaintance today and she called me a "stark Republican" but I don't think my party affiliation has anything to do with my opinion (or maybe it does.)
> 
> This bill was made to protect *YOU AND US! *The people of the United States! If you have nothing to hide, then this bill shouldn't bother you. I don't care if the FBI knows that my grandmother just enrolled in a "Yoga for Senior Citizens" class. I don't care if the government knows that I subscribe to my local newspaper. They're trying to protect *ME *and I respect and admire them for that.
> 
> Please don't take this harshly, but I am tired of the liberal media trying to give everyone a million freedoms and then some. It's absolutely crazy. Don't get me started on the flag-burning issue and things like that....
> 
> I try to stay out of CD because my political opinions are sometimes considered "too" strong...so please don't take offense to this message.


It's naivete like that that causes freedom to be taken away. Sure, George W. Bush might not use spying for dubious or selfish purposes, but what about some president in the future? Remember: if George W. Bush is allowed to have these special powers just because he's president, future presidents get these powers too. Future presidents might not be as trustworthy as you think Bush is. We know for a fact that presidents in the past have spied on their political enemies and found out information they had no right to know. Bush's expansion of powers would make something like that so much easier for him or a future president to do. It's almost as if you and other Bush supporters are begging for some more big political scandals. There's a reason our Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balances in our Constitution, and to say that the president can spy on anyone he wants without anyone else's approval makes a mockery of that system. The Founding Fathers are probably turning over in their graves right now, because they tried so hard to create such a great system of government and people today don't even appreciate it.

And it's false that you should only be worried if you have something to hide. Keep in mind that spying makes it so much easier for the government to crack down on types of behavior that it finds undesirable. All sorts of new information would be at the government's disposal. Are the spying powers by themselves bad? No. But they certainly have the potential to lead this country in a direction where I'm sure none of us want it to go. Once you give away your freedom, you're most likely not getting it back.

Free countries' governments don't spy on innocent citizens. Only corrupt dictatorships do.


----------



## TRG

The question of government spying on the communications of private citizens is a really interesting one. I personally don't care, but only because I'm so boring no one could possibly be interested or find anything useful in what I've said. It's not so much the matter of the government having access to private information, but what do they do with it. No one disagrees with the idea of a criminal having his phone tapped and being proscuted on the basis of information so acquired. What we object to is the government using private information to persecute or prosecute otherwise innocent people. I'm not sure how this could ever happen in the US since information obtained without a warrent will always be thrown out of court. I suppose blackmail, political or otherwise is a possibility, but it would seem more likely to blow up in the fact of the perpetrator. And I can never see us getting to the point of having a secret police that come and take you away in the middle of the night never to be seen again. That's not happening... is it?


----------



## maxiogee

Bienvenidos said:


> This bill was made to protect *YOU AND US! *The people of the United States! If you have nothing to hide, then this bill shouldn't bother you. I don't care if the FBI knows that my grandmother just enrolled in a "Yoga for Senior Citizens" class. I don't care if the government knows that I subscribe to my local newspaper. They're trying to protect *ME *and I respect and admire them for that.


What (in X years time when there is a new Executive) happens when a tiny pressure group for some unpopular cause sends circulars out to its supporters - seeking finance.
The cause they are espousing runs directly counter to the wishes and actions of several of the financial backers of the President.
The names and addresses of those who (perfectly legally) fund this little group become available through this reading of private correspondence. Do you think for one instant that any of those one the list who just happen to benefit from Government contracts, or even contracts with the private firms of the President's backers, are not going to receive a visit from a solicitous person anxious that they should not jeopardise these contracts?


----------



## TRG

Todays New York Times weighed in on the signing statement kerfuffle with an editorial. Here is the relavent passage:

_Also last month, Mr. Bush issued another of his infamous “presidential signing statements,” which he has used scores of times to make clear he does not intend to respect the requirements of a particular law — in this case a little-noticed Postal Service bill. The statement suggested that Mr. Bush does not believe the government must obtain a court order before opening Americans’ first-class mail. It said the administration had the right to “conduct searches in exigent circumstances,” which include not only protecting lives, but also unspecified “foreign intelligence collection.”_


Here is the language from the actual signing statement:_The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection._​ 
Note that they failed to include the words "specifically authorized by law". Just an oversight I suppose.


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> Note that they failed to include the words "specifically authorized by law". Just an oversight I suppose.



They probably don't understand what it refers to.

Is it to be read as:
and the need for *physical searches specifically authorized by law* for foreign intelligence collection.

or is it to be read as:
and the need for physical searches *specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection*.

I suggest a few commas be posted to the White House and see what use they make of them.


----------



## Outsider

Bienvenidos said:


> If you have nothing to hide, then this bill shouldn't bother you.





. said:


> I have mentally revewied my mail and can find no conspiratorial material?


I'm sorry, but that's the excuse that all inquisitors use. In a democracy, each of us has the right to "hide" whatever he so wishes -- it's called privacy. 

The burden should be on the state to convince the courts that a particular individual may be planning something dangerous to the community. Otherwise, everyone should be presumed innocent.

Maybe I'm a "stark democrat". 



Scrooge said:


> It's naivete like that that causes freedom to be taken away. Sure, George W. Bush might not use spying for dubious or selfish purposes, but what about some president in the future? Remember: if George W. Bush is allowed to have these special powers just because he's president, future presidents get these powers too. Future presidents might not be as trustworthy as you think Bush is. We know for a fact that presidents in the past have spied on their political enemies and found out information they had no right to know. Bush's expansion of powers would make something like that so much easier for him or a future president to do.


Forget about presidents. What about lowly, underpaid government officials and their friends?... Or do you think Bush has been doing all the spying by himself?


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Bienvenidos said:


> This bill was made to protect *YOU AND US! *The people of the United States! If you have nothing to hide, then this bill shouldn't bother you.



Other members have posted excellent replied to this, so I'll just add a quote oft attributed to ol'Ben Franklin:



> Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety



The mindset of "if you don't have anything to hide, why bother?" isn't far away from "why are you bothered with this? Got anything to hide?".


----------



## .   1

Outsider said:


> I'm sorry, but that's the excuse that all inquisitors use. In a democracy, each of us has the right to "hide" whatever he so wishes -- it's called privacy.


Thank you for the comparison and the definition.  I am much wiser now and feel better about myself.

.,,


----------



## Outsider

Glad to be of service.


----------



## TRG

Lemminkäinen said:


> Other members have posted excellent replied to this, so I'll just add a quote oft attributed to ol'Ben Franklin:
> 
> 
> 
> The mindset of "if you don't have anything to hide, why bother?" isn't far away from "why are you bothered with this? Got anything to hide?".


 
The attribution of this quote to Franklin is apocryphal, see here or here. And besides, exactly what is essential?



maxiogee said:


> They probably don't understand what it refers to.
> 
> Is it to be read as:
> and the need for *physical searches specifically authorized by law* for foreign intelligence collection.
> 
> or is it to be read as:
> and the need for physical searches *specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection*.
> 
> I suggest a few commas be posted to the White House and see what use they make of them.


 
The meaning of the phrase seems unambiguous enough. Perhaps you could explain what the difference is.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

TRG said:


> The attribution of this quote to Franklin is apocryphal, see here or here.



Yes, I know. Hence the "oft attributed" (wikiquote provides a similarly themed quote from him though).



> And besides, exactly what is essential?


 
Privacy, as granted by (amongst others) the 4th Amendment and Article 8 in the European Convention on Human Rights, would seem to fit the bill.


----------



## .   1

I thought that you might.


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:


> Is it to be read as:
> and the need for *physical searches specifically authorized by law* for foreign intelligence collection.
> 
> or is it to be read as:
> and the need for physical searches *specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection*.





TRG said:


> The meaning of the phrase seems unambiguous enough. Perhaps you could explain what the difference is.



What is it which is specifically authorized by law - a law allowing the physical searches or a law allowing the collection of foreign intelligence?


----------



## Bienvenidos

If we're so concerned about mail being "private," I suppose we should extend that right to EVERYONE in the United States. Let's just *NOT* go through the mail of prisoners, looking for secret codes. They deserve their privacy too, right? They shouldn't have to worry about prison officials *MEDDLING *in their affairs. Sure, it may give a jailed criminal more power in the outside world, more drugs may be sold and more lives ruined, but it's all in the name of *PRIVACY!*

It frightens me to think of what direction liberal America is heading; it really does. The world is changing people. We need to do something to protect everyone. I admire and respect all of your opinions, and I am not saying that any one perspective is better than another. But before we know it, we will be giving rights to people who don't deserve them! People need to take responsibility for their OWN ACTIONS! Look at our world today: people are suing McDonalds for being obese. We yell and scream, "IT'S THE COMPANY'S FAULT!" No. It was your choice to go to McDonalds. I understand the "genetic" background of obesity, but must we always take the blame off of ourselves? I'm going to sue PhillipMorris because I SMOKED AND NOW I HAVE CANCER! Well, GOOD FOR YOU! Because it CLEARLY was not YOUR CHOICE to smoke and you CLEARLY didn't know ANYTHING about nicotine, carcinogens or any other of the "mumbo-jumbo" that your health teacher was talking to you about in KINDERGARTEN! And that whole thing about robbers suing homeowners for "getting hurt" while they were trying to BURGLARIZE a house!

The issue here is not politics nor morality--it's common sense. If we can PREVENT something from happening, we should do it. We have plenty of other freedoms. This does not affect the average joe at all. It's not like the government is going to spy on you because you sent in a mail-in-coupon for Betty Crocker cake mix and not Duncan Hines!  

Again, my opinion is no better than yours. And I don't mean to be offensive or open up another can-of-worms.


----------



## TRG

Lemminkäinen said:


> Yes, I know. Hence the "oft attributed" (wikiquote provides a similarly themed quote from him though).
> 
> 
> 
> Privacy, as granted by (amongst others) the 4th Amendment and Article 8 in the European Convention on Human Rights, would seem to fit the bill.


 
A right to privacy is not specifically granted anywhere in the US constitution. The 4th amendment specifically forbids "unreasonable searchs and seizures". And searches and seizures do not always require a warrant as you well know if you have ever boarded a commercial airplane. 

However, the US Supreme Court has determined that such a right does exist, so we now have a defacto right to privacy. You are still only protected against "unreasonable" searches so you can always go to court if you think the government has been unreasonable and the court may well side with you. If the search involved some "exigent circumstance" relating to public safety, I wouldn't get too optimistic about winning such a case.

An expression that is often used in these discussions is, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."   My right to say, not be murdered in my home, is more important that your right to privacy.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Bienvenidos said:


> If we're so concerned about mail being "private," I suppose we should extend that right to EVERYONE in the United States. Let's just *NOT* go through the mail of prisoners, looking for secret codes. They deserve their privacy too, right? They shouldn't have to worry about prison officials *MEDDLING *in their affairs. Sure, it may give a jailed criminal more power in the outside world, more drugs may be sold and more lives ruined, but it's all in the name of *PRIVACY!*



Nobody's advocated this. There are restrictions on the privacy of mail, as defined by the Fourth Amendment - for instance, it can be opened with a court order. 

I'm not informed about the state of American prisoners' state of privacy regarding their correspondance, so I can't say much more about it.



> It frightens me to think of what direction liberal America is heading; it really does.



I'm honestly not sure how your rant is relevant to this thread, but I just want to remind you that America has been ruled by a conservative president for 6 years, and a conservative Congress for 12 years. Liberal America, indeed.



> The issue here is not politics nor morality--it's common sense. *If we can PREVENT something from happening, we should do it.*



I'm curious how far you would be willing to go for this (i.e. how many freedoms do you think could be circumvented in order to prevent something from happening). The most relevant thought here is, perhaps, torture, but I fear a discussion of that with regards to personal liberty and rights would be drifting too far off-topic.



> We have plenty of other freedoms.



And what when those are gradually removed until there are none left? Could you be content if the First Amendment's freedom of speech was removed, because at least you still had the Second Amendment's right to bear arms? (Note: you can switch those freedoms if you like, or insert something else - this was just one example).


----------



## Scrooge

> If we're so concerned about mail being "private," I suppose we should extend that right to EVERYONE in the United States. Let's just *NOT* go through the mail of prisoners, looking for secret codes. They deserve their privacy too, right? They shouldn't have to worry about prison officials *MEDDLING *in their affairs. Sure, it may give a jailed criminal more power in the outside world, more drugs may be sold and more lives ruined, but it's all in the name of *PRIVACY!*


No, I don't think anyone here's advocating that. When you commit a crime (i.e. you don't respect the rights of others), you get rights taken away as a punishment. However, innocent people should not be searched without a good reason. It's a principle of our system of government. It's unfair to punish the whole nation just because of a few terrorists. Only people who are guilty of crimes should be punished. (Yes, believe it or not, some of us value our privacy and would consider it a punishment if we lost it.)



> It frightens me to think of what direction liberal America is heading; it really does. The world is changing people. We need to do something to protect everyone. I admire and respect all of your opinions, and I am not saying that any one perspective is better than another. But before we know it, we will be giving rights to people who don't deserve them! People need to take responsibility for their OWN ACTIONS! Look at our world today: people are suing McDonalds for being obese. We yell and scream, "IT'S THE COMPANY'S FAULT!" No. It was your choice to go to McDonalds. I understand the "genetic" background of obesity, but must we always take the blame off of ourselves? I'm going to sue PhillipMorris because I SMOKED AND NOW I HAVE CANCER! Well, GOOD FOR YOU! Because it CLEARLY was not YOUR CHOICE to smoke and you CLEARLY didn't know ANYTHING about nicotine, carcinogens or any other of the "mumbo-jumbo" that your health teacher was talking to you about in KINDERGARTEN! And that whole thing about robbers suing homeowners for "getting hurt" while they were trying to BURGLARIZE a house!


That has nothing to do with this topic. You're bringing up unrelated issues. And for the record, I'm not a liberal! I'm a libertarian! So none of the views above even apply to me. Just because someone values their privacy doesn't necessarily mean that they're against personal responsibility. In fact, I believe in personal responsibility at least as much as you do. I completely agree that people need to stop blaming corporations for their problems.



> The issue here is not politics nor morality--it's common sense. If we can PREVENT something from happening, we should do it. We have plenty of other freedoms. This does not affect the average joe at all. It's not like the government is going to spy on you because you sent in a mail-in-coupon for Betty Crocker cake mix and not Duncan Hines!


Then why don't you go even further and just advocate spying on everyone? Why not make this country Orwellian? Wouldn't that "prevent" even more things from happening? After all, any degree of privacy can result in crimes and actions that endanger the safety of the public. However, that's a risk that most of us are willing to take. We value freedom so much that we're willing to put ourselves at levels of risk that more authoritarian people would consider "unnecessary". You, on the other hand, are willing to throw away a little bit of freedom for a little bit of temporary safety. I hope the sacrifice is worth it to you. However, in my opinion, if we surrender our freedom because of a terrorist threat, then the terrorists win. After all, what are we defending if not freedom? If your sole concern is being safe, then the best way to achieve that would be to live in solitary confinement for the rest of your life and only interact with others when you need food, water, and other vital necessities.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

TRG said:


> A right to privacy is not specifically granted anywhere in the US constitution. The 4th amendment specifically forbids "unreasonable searchs and seizures". And searches and seizures do not always require a warrant as you well know if you have ever boarded a commercial airplane.



True. Perhaps I should have specified it as "mail privacy" (meaning your right to not have your mail searched, except for exceptions such as court orders, customs, &c), apologies for being unclear. 



> An expression that is often used in these discussions is, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."   My right to say, not be murdered in my home, is more important that your right to privacy.



Yes, but if a situation arose where your life was at stake and my right to privacy was in the way, warrents can quickly be administered (and if I remember correctly, I think law enforcers can do bona fide breaches of privacy if they are confident that a warrent will be issued).


----------



## Bienvenidos

Scrooge said:


> That has nothing to do with this topic. You're bringing up unrelated issues. And for the record, I'm not a liberal! I'm a libertarian! So none of the views above even apply to me. Just because someone values their privacy doesn't necessarily mean that they're against personal responsibility. In fact, I believe in personal responsibility at least as much as you do. I completely agree that people need to stop blaming corporations for their problems.



I'm supporting the idea behind this new law with other "issues" that have been notably disputed recently and--in effect--have affected the views of all citizens of the United States.

The idea behind this "don't read my mail" issue is simple; the force behind "this is a breech of constitution right" is the concept of:

If my mother drops me off at school, then I have to go on the playground. If I go on the playground, I might fall and scrape my knee. If I fall and scrape my knee, I might get an infection. If I get an infection, I might have to go to the doctor. If I go to the doctor, then I'll have to bring my insurance card. 

It's all "what-ifs." Just let your mother drop you off at school! You'll be fine! What are the chances "this" will happen to you...I don't know how I can explain this better.


----------



## Bienvenidos

I feel like I'm going in circles. So I'll just end by thanking everyone for their opinions and agreeing with you on three things:

*1) *There is no doubt that this law will be abused. People will take advantage of it if the power is given to "anyone." 
*2) *We can not always trust the government. But they are our friends, not our enemies.
*3)* "Liberal; moral; privacy; constitutional; dictator; government" These words can be defined in many different ways. To each his own.

Sorry to stir up emotions. Please don't see me as a freedom-hating lunatic. I'm not. I've just seen too many people get hurt as the "justness" of society has been debated. We need to be careful, that's all.


----------



## Scrooge

Bienvenidos said:


> I'm supporting the idea behind this new law with other "issues" that have been notably disputed recently and--in effect--have affected the views of all citizens of the United States.
> 
> The idea behind this "don't read my mail" issue is simple; the force behind "this is a breech of constitution right" is the concept of:
> 
> If my mother drops me off at school, then I have to go on the playground. If I go on the playground, I might fall and scrape my knee. If I fall and scrape my knee, I might get an infection. If I get an infection, I might have to go to the doctor. If I go to the doctor, then I'll have to bring my insurance card.
> 
> It's all "what-ifs." Just let your mother drop you off at school! You'll be fine! What are the chances "this" will happen to you...I don't know how I can explain this better.


So all actions should be judged based on the likely of something bad happening to any specific individual? I think not.

Let's say that the government decides to kill 100 of its citizens at random this year. Statistically, it's pretty much guaranteed that at least a handful of them will be criminals or future criminals, so the government would argue that society would be safer as a result. Also, the likelihood of you or me getting killed would be so miniscule that it wouldn't really be worth worrying about. After all, out of the 300 million people living in this country, the probability of either of us being one of the 100 people killed is far below even 1%. You'd probably be more likely to get struck by lightning than to be one of the government's victims. However, does that mean that it would be right to allow the government to kill 100 of its citizens at random? I think all sane people would agree with me that the answer to that is *NO*.

You may object that it's ludicrous to compare spying to random murders. You'd be correct that there is quite a large difference between the two. However, that's not the point. The point is that, even if the likelihood of you or me being affected is very small, that doesn't mean you shouldn't worry. I'm not saying that we should all be paranoid - we should just be cautious. Given our government's history, I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the expanded spying powers, if we allow Bush and other presidents to use them, will be abused at some point. Believe it or not, the American government, like every other government in the world, is not perfect.


----------



## TRG

Lemminkäinen said:


> I'm curious how far you would be willing to go for this (i.e. how many freedoms do you think could be circumvented in order to prevent something from happening). The most relevant thought here is, perhaps, torture, but I fear a discussion of that with regards to personal liberty and rights would be drifting too far off-topic.
> 
> And what when those are gradually removed until there are none left? Could you be content if the First Amendment's freedom of speech was removed, because at least you still had the Second Amendment's right to bear arms? (Note: you can switch those freedoms if you like, or insert something else - this was just one example).


 
We place in our government a public trust to not abuse its citizens. To some degree we must allow the government to function and trust that the system of checks and balances will work. When it is clear that the government is out of control and abusing the public trust then the citizens must act. Since we get to completely re-elect the house every two years, the senate every six years, and the president every four years it would seem unlikely that our system of laws and government would be transmogrified into a totalitarian state. If this were to happen, then the citizens must take additionial action which is why the founding fathers thought we should have guns, as in the second amendment. I don't want to start a debate on this, but clearly some of the founders felt that the citizens should be armed in order to restrain the power of the central government. I find it mildly amusing that the people in the US who don't want people to have guns are the same ones who feel most strongly that GWB is taking us in the direction of a dictatorship. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed, sometimes even when there is only one person in the bed!


----------



## Scrooge

TRG said:


> We place in our government a public trust to not abuse its citizens. To some degree we must allow the government to function and trust that the system of checks and balances will work. When it is clear that the government is out of control and abusing the public trust then the citizens must act. Since we get to completely re-elect the house every two years, the senate every six years, and the president every four years it would seem unlikely that our system of laws and government would be transmogrified into a totalitarian state. If this were to happen, then the citizens must take additionial action which is why the founding fathers thought we should have guns, as in the second amendment. I don't want to start a debate on this, but clearly some of the founders felt that the citizens should be armed in order to restrain the power of the central government. I find it mildly amusing that the people in the US who don't want people to have guns are the same ones who feel most strongly that GWB is taking us in the direction of a dictatorship. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed, sometimes even when there is only one person in the bed!


I think Bush is taking us in the direction of a dictatorship *and* I believe strongly in Second Amendment rights. I'm consistent.


----------



## Victoria32

. said:


> G'day Culturer@s
> Do you care if your private mail is being read by Big Brother?
> Is allowing Governmental access to private communications likely to make the world a more dangerous place?
> 
> Robert


I care, on principle - even though I write nothing of interest to anyone but my correspondents. 
Absolutely yes, access by Government or by business, the latter possibly more offensive than Government, at least to me. One word - Echelon, there is an Echelon base not 100 km from here.  

Vicky


----------

