I disagree with much of the premise of all of this. Fact is, as technologies advance even further, my question to everyone is how would you even *know* that your privacy and your civil rights have been violated? The answer is -- you don't.

Here are some cases which would be contrary to unreasonable search and seizure. Basically, who is calling the kettle "black"? Read on...

"INDIANAPOLIS v. EDMUND (6-3) struck down police roadblocks aimed at discovering drugs for comparable privacy reasons, as well as the fact (unlike alcohol checkpoints, quite arguably comparably unjust) of their law enforcement interest. The difference appears to be that drug roadblocks deal with illegal substances, while alcohol roadblocks is are safety checkpoints to stop the abuse of a legal substance. Nonetheless, drunk driving is illegal, privacy concerns are raised, and the ultimate value (false hits, etc.) is questionable. At any rate, the Fourth Amendment limits such broad warrantless searches as applied to drug checkpoints."

Or this one...

"ATWATER v. CITY OF LAGO VISTA (5-4) weirdly gave the broadest discretion to arrests for trivial offenses. Let it be noted that such discretion contains within its limits a right to search as well, and furthermore, a previous case said the true motivation for the arrest need not be addressed. This is important since quite a few arrests for relatively trivial offenses are really a way for the police to target certain groups, such as assumed drug dealers or people of a certain color or personality, while ignoring many others (e.g. stopping people for trivial traffic offenses). Therefore, though arresting a soccer mom for a seatbelt violation (with her kids present) and holding her in a cell for an hour or so, is outrageous in itself, the case potentially has a much broader reach."

Or this one...

"FERGUSON v. CHARLESTON (6-3) held that a public hospital cannot test pregnant women for illegal drug use without their consent, if the police is informed of the crime. Privacy is often ignored in the Drug War, and this decision rightly limited a prime invasion of privacy of a class that is particularly vulnerable (poor pregnant women). Furthermore, the threat of punishment would quite possibly hinder women from feeling free to undergo necessary health treatment. The rights of women therefore trumps the interest of the unborn, especially since their interest is better protected by other means."

Or this one...

"KYLLO v. UNITED STATES involved the use of thermal imaging to search for marijuana growing in a home, an end around to the Fourth Amendment, which requires a warrant for most searches, surely of homes. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia, a conservative but one who at times reads amendments protecting the right of defendants as broadly as they are written, struck down the conviction. The use of such extraordinary means (compared to say a dog, who sniffs for drugs at an airport) crosses the line of ordinary human senses to a degree that violates the Fourth Amendment. The ever-increasing growth of technology that is able to override our privacy makes such a requirement essential for true Fourth Amendment protection. The fact the home is involved, even for such "horrible" things as marijuana use, makes the case that much more important."

URL taken from:
http://www.angelfire.com/ny3/mythoughtsdotrules/SC2001.html

Or how about this?
http://www.gunnewsdaily.com/rwsoc1.html

I personally like this quote from here:

"Of course, those who say the state grants us the "privilege" to drive would then say random house searches are illegal. Why are they any different? As owners of property you pay property taxes to the state or county for the continued right to retain ownership. The state has granted you the "privilege" to own a house...it's not an absolute right. Therefore, it's logical to allow random searches of houses without probable cause. They have the right to ask if you own your home by asking you to show them the property deed. They have the right to ask if your property taxes are paid up in full, and if not, to confiscate your home until you have paid a penalty. If you fail to pay up, your home is sold and the proceeds entered into the government coffers. Remember, because it's random, they don't need probable cause according to the Supreme Court. So, what's the difference? There is no difference. When the government demands a tax for the right of a citizen to maintain ownership of a piece of property, it does not also grant the government the power to violate constitutional law.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Stopping cars without probable cause to determine if the driver is "legal" is the same as searching a house randomly to determine if some illegality has occurred. All this is done so some Americans that are financially secure can smugly go about their life feeling "safe" from those who do not have the financial means to comply with a government hand that is heavily laden with the hard earned money of an over-taxed American middle class. They will continue to feel safe until one day they become a victim of their own stupidity."

Closing comments:

"Until then, keep your doors locked, the car in the garage, and your powder dry. It's only going to get worse before it gets better." Niiiiiice.

And of course, the law enforcement's side of things (Hampton, VA Police):
http://www.hampton.va.us/police/programs/safety_road_checks.
html

I'm sorry, but cybersearches rank in similar order and circumstances to that of physical searches. Some of the cases found attempt (very poorly) at differentiating between "the good guys" and "the bad guys". Realistically, at some point in time (as ANY Russian, Slovakian, Romanian, or any person from an Eastern Block country would agree), it will become a *COMMON* thing in which ANYONE and EVERYONE is a "bad guy".

Just as the Nazi's did back in Pre-WW2 days, you will be required to "show your papers" at every doorway, every firewall, every portal, every network connection -- everywhere. The government will know exactly what you purchased, when your purchased it, for ho much, and what it would (or could) be used for.

Lemme pose this question to the ladies of the crowd...

Do you want some snot-nosed FBI agent who's barely 19 analyzing sniffer packet reports that you had visited "Victoria Secret's" web site? Or even better yet, they know which "nightie" you purchased and where you live. Hmmmmm......sounds like a case for stalking someone, eh?

This also goes along the line of the I-PASS transponders that many states now have (let's see....VA, NY, NJ, KY, CA, IL....just for starters). IL has DOUBLED the tolls here in Chicago to *encourage* the use of the I-PASS system. Little do most people know that NOW, the I-PASS systems can not only target your vehicle based upon the unique identification transponder number of your I-PASS, but can tell how fast you're going, and where you are located (through telemetry triangulation). I own an I-PASS, but it's wrapped in aluminum foil -- twice -- to prevent the transponders from emitting ANYTHING to the receives (which are now just about every 2-3 miles on every major tollway here in Chicago. Hmmmmm.....

The sniffers will be something similar to that. You want the government known where you've been? What about you perverts who have deviant sexual fetishes (I won't go into it, but I know that there are ALOT of kinky people out there) -- do you want to labelled as a "pervert" by the government?

Hardly.

All of this reaks of Nazism, as it is the slow eroding process of our civil liberties, rights and privacy.

(Just my $0.02, which isn't worth jack anymore now that some cultures do it for free)

-rad

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/297/30446#30446