- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Location
- under the floorboards
I was objecting to the terminology. I'm aware of such cases.
-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
Is your school spying on YOU?
- Thread starter mbigna
- Start date
I was objecting to the terminology. I'm aware of such cases.
I think stories like this work out really well to Aleviate the fear that the goverment will use technological methods to spy on people, and breech 9th ammendment bill of rights. plus 3rd and 4th.
i mean of all the times people downplayed and told people that the wearing of thier tin foil hats was undue paranoia and fear, to have stories like this handed to them that demonstrate that it wasnt so pair-annoyed as was stated.
on the other hand, i think they could have just put the Ol Sticker on that we saw while in the military services for america , like the phones with red stickers definining them as monitorable at any time.
o these computers a big red tag could have existed that said
" this computer is goverment property still and such that any device in this computer can be utalised to monitor everything that goes on in around by and through this computer. If you dont like it, get your own."
i mean of all the times people downplayed and told people that the wearing of thier tin foil hats was undue paranoia and fear, to have stories like this handed to them that demonstrate that it wasnt so pair-annoyed as was stated.
on the other hand, i think they could have just put the Ol Sticker on that we saw while in the military services for america , like the phones with red stickers definining them as monitorable at any time.
o these computers a big red tag could have existed that said
" this computer is goverment property still and such that any device in this computer can be utalised to monitor everything that goes on in around by and through this computer. If you dont like it, get your own."
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Location
- San Luis Obispo, CA
I think stories like this work out really well to Aleviate the fear that the goverment will use technological methods to spy on people, and breech 9th ammendment bill of rights. plus 3rd and 4th.
i mean of all the times people downplayed and told people that the wearing of thier tin foil hats was undue paranoia and fear, to have stories like this handed to them that demonstrate that it wasnt so pair-annoyed as was stated.
on the other hand, i think they could have just put the Ol Sticker on that we saw while in the military services for america , like the phones with red stickers definining them as monitorable at any time.
o these computers a big red tag could have existed that said
" this computer is goverment property still and such that any device in this computer can be utalised to monitor everything that goes on in around by and through this computer. If you dont like it, get your own."
I can personally attest, the government has no interest in your rights. there are systems in place that are "not" legal in my local court. It's not anything that is even an inconvenience, but if you were to know your rights and demand that we give you your right to appear in front of a judge and it was not granted a good attorney could have the case dismissed.
The government does what it wants to do. Remember that local, state and federal ALL have "different" agenda's. The people who work there are there to accomplish that agenda, but like everything else in life they don't always play fair. Governments are only as trustworthy as the people that run it, and I don't trust anyone further than I can throw them.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Location
- under the floorboards
The 9th and 3rd amendments have nothing to do with search and seizure except as a really attenuated interpretive argument.
The 9th amendment just says that the mention of a right in the bill of rights does not exclude the existence of other rights.
The 3rd amendment is about quartering of troops. The 3rd amendment hasn't been an issue since the 18th century.
The government is not a monolith. There are plenty of people in government who are very dedicated to preserving rights. There are also people in government to don't care.
i was going after the "privacy" thing
this kinda stuff
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
I wouldnt have made such broad interpretations myself, it just Has been.
. . . , and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people . . . . be they electronic or not
and "or abridging the freedom of speech" when some Machine is sent out to monitor your Audio, by default i think that most people would agree, that it would contribute slightly to screwing up your ability to say what you want , when it wouldnt even be bothering other people. to abridge or shorten or confine what you might say in your own home.
If there is no "freedom" to do crasy stuff in your own home, without bothering others, then we could back apply the entire basis for the founders laws , or just give up the rest of our alleged freedom entirely.
.
this kinda stuff
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html
The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
I wouldnt have made such broad interpretations myself, it just Has been.
. . . , and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people . . . . be they electronic or not
and "or abridging the freedom of speech" when some Machine is sent out to monitor your Audio, by default i think that most people would agree, that it would contribute slightly to screwing up your ability to say what you want , when it wouldnt even be bothering other people. to abridge or shorten or confine what you might say in your own home.
If there is no "freedom" to do crasy stuff in your own home, without bothering others, then we could back apply the entire basis for the founders laws , or just give up the rest of our alleged freedom entirely.
.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2002
- Location
- under the floorboards
Yeah, the Griswold concurrence is what I was talking about under "really attenuated interpretive argument".
i think it would be much simpler to keep this kind of goverment intrusions from becomming a wide spread accepted activity, if we just simply apply that prisons are not freedom.
and monitoring everything people would do in thier own home or own room even, would have prison like qualities to it.
