Thread: -The Docket-

A discussion of privacy rights in an Internet Age If there is one aspect of the law which should matter the most to an active and vibrant online community, like the one found here at Blue Moon, it is the issue of online privacy, and the scope and extent to which certain information should only be given to the government, after the authorities have gone through the proper legal channels of procuring and executing a proper search warrant. This sort of mindset has been with us since the United States was founded some two-hundred thirty-eight years ago. And, similar such notions have been adopted by various other nations throughout history. Continuing on with the nation's laws that I understand best, as I was trained in themThe United StatesI think it is important to explore some of the historical reasoning behind the development of our Constitutional protections, before examining whether such protections are still reasonably applicable today. During the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the Founding Fathers debated over whether a need existed to develop a Bill of Rights, which were inalienable, or more appropriately stated unalienable. That is, whether individuals were endowed by right of birth with certain rights and freedoms which the government cannot arbitrarily take away from the citizenry. We know this Bill of Rights today as composing the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, and which had been further strengthened by the drafting and ratification of the Thirteenth aboilition of slavery, FourteenthEqual Protection and Due Process as extended to the several states, and Fifteenth right to vote Amendments after the American Civil War and, the Nineteenth Amendment right to Woman's suffragevoting rights in 1920. Each one of these amazing rights, on their own, have merited vast and voluminous study and examination. Indeed, entire academic pursuits have been dedicated to each, in their own right. However, for purposes of the point I wish to study here, the following Amendments are the ones I shall narrow my examination to 1 The Fourth and Fifth Amendments rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to not be forced into self incrimination, right to notice and a hearingDue Process 2 The Sixth Amendment right to face one's accusers, and right to speedy and public trial in front of a jury of one's peers and, 3 The Fourteenth Amendment. Rights of Due Processas extended to the governments of the several statesand Equal Protection. I combined the Fourth and Fifth Amendments here, because in criminal proceedings, they operate in such a fashion that it is all but impossible to separate them in any meaningful manner. During the Revolutionary War, Great Britain possessed a similar notion of Due Process as contained in the Fifth, and later, the Fourteenth Amendments. That is to say, that an accused citizen must be afforded notice of the alleged crimes with which he or she is charged, and he or she must be afforded an opportunity to a hearing, in which the citizen has the right to contest those charges. However, the British system at the time did not afford the citizen a right to a specified warrant, supported by oath or affirmation, demonstrating probable cause, that the accused most probably committed the offenses of which he or she currently has been charged. That right is specifically found in the Fourth Amendment's Warrant and Probable Cause clauses. Furthermore, the British system of the time also did not avail the accused with the right to face his or her accusers in a court of law, in front of a jury of his or her peers, as found in the Sixth Amendment. These days, Americans practically take these rights for granted. We know very little with regards to the horrors of general warrantswarrants that allow the search of an individual's entire home, business, person, papers, or effects...based on no specific charges as per the Fourth Amendment. In other words, being charged with a mere suspicion of a crimeand secret courts, where our fates could be determined by a single appointed judgeand a judge who is not appointed by an elected official...eliminating any connection to the will of the peoplewho only hears the prosecution's side of the story in violation of the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as in the old Star Chamber Courts of England. We understand that we have the right to an attorney, even when we cannot afford such representation, and we know that we have a rightat least in cases of felony chargesof being indicted by a Grand Jury, before any charges may be pressed against us in a court of law. Pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Moreover, Americans take comfort in the fact that their most intimate places...their persons, homes, papers, and effects, cannot unreasonably be searched andor seized and, that such searchesseizures are only reasonable where there is a warrant, supported by oath or affirmation stating the particular person or place to be searched and seized, while also detailing the charges with which the accused stands charged. As per the Fourth Amendment. Yet all of these well-established legal customs are in serious jeopardy in the modern age. With the Internet revolution, which hit full stride about twenty years ago, and the terrorist attacks of 911, the Federal Government has been amassing significant and substantial powers to gather information, whether they secured a warrant or not. In conjunction with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act hereinafter, FISA. A secret court was established, where unelected judges, or even more frighteningly, judges appointed by another judgemeaning the judge is not even appointed by an elected officialrenders a decision as to whether to grant a warrant, via testimony supplied only by the prosecution, without the support of probable cause and, without the requirement of informing the accused what they stand accused of...much less providing the accused with an itemized list of the types of information to be searched or seized. While the original argument behind the FISA statute, at the time of its passing in 1978, was that it would never be used against American Citizens the revolutionary impact of the Internet has increasingly brought American Citizens under the fold of this court. This is due, in part, to the fact that such information has global reach, and can travel through American territory without the other person even being in America...or that an American can be considered to be engaged in foreign intelligence activity, without ever leaving hisher home in the United States. Thus, under the current system, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments are discarded, and an individual's computer can be searched without the user's knowledge or consent or, even with an opportunity to respond to such activities in a court of law. Even worse still, numerous governmental agencies have started collecting vast treasure troves of information, storing said information on various governmental sites, without even bothering to procure the secret, general warrants issued by the FISA courts! This raises alarming questions with respect to our fundamental, Constitutionally protected rights. There can be no question that national-security is an important issue, deserving some deference to the government. However, even with such collected information, the United States Government failed to prevent the horrific attack of the Boston Marathon Bombingeven though Russian authorities warned the United States, on numerous occasions about the Tsarnaev brothers and, despite the fact that the National Security Agency N.S.A. had collected vast amounts of data on the brothers, without ever procuring a FISA warrant. It would seem to me, therefore, that our government has violated, and continues to violate our fundamental Constitutionally protected rights without much purpose. National-security shall always be a delicate balancing act, but we should not secure such protection at the complete sacrifice of our civil libertiesor, at least, that is how I feel on the matter.