Originally
posted by
rpottage1:
The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures. In the past that would be enough; but the fourth amendment only protects you and your property. Every street as a switchboard on it that directs calls automatically; that's not your property. That's government property so the fourth amendment does protect search and seizures of that, which means your calls can be monitored.
Think of it like mail; the government can't go into your house to look at your mail. But if you send something in the mail they can open it up and check if they feel there's a reasonable chance that there's anthrax inside of it.
Uh, nothing about that is true. Katz v. US says that the cops can't monitor your calls without a warrant. 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Indeed, it said that monitoring of calls must be "so narrowly circumscribed that a duly authorized magistrate, properly notified of the need for such investigation, specifically informed of the basis on which it was to proceed, and clearly apprised of the precise intrusion it would entail, could constitutionally have authorized, with appropriate safeguards, the very limited search and seizure" - which is hardly what the NSA was doing. id at 354-355. SCOTUS has held that you don't have a 4th Amend protection for WHO you call (Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)) but the substance of your call is protected. The metadata about your calls is separately protected by statute. You should also see US v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010), which addresses email monitoring.
Further, your comment about the mails is off too. In 1878, the SCOTUS said:
"No law of Congress can place in the hands of officials connected with the postal service any authority to invade the secrecy of letters and such sealed packages in the mail; and all regulations adopted as to mail matter of this kind must be in subordination to the great principle embodied in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution ... regulations excluding matter from the mail cannot be enforced in a way which would require or permit an examination into letters, or sealed packages subject to letter postage, without warrant, issued upon oath or affirmation, in the search for prohibited matter" Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733-755 (1878).
The gov't could track to whom you send your mail, but it couldn't open it at will.
Back on topic, I think that arguing about Snowden misses the larger point - the debate about whether the gov't can or should be doing what they're doing.
