Privacy intrusion or Justified crime fighting?

I see you've missed the point too. Is it the drinking water around here or is stupid the new in-thing?




the question is a philosophical one and is not meant to be about the law as I or you see it. read the question..." acceptable from the standpoint of your personal philosophical leanings, not according to your interpretation of the US Constitution, common law, or case law.precedent"

what is it about child molesters that peaks your interest? the only people I know who mention that one out of context are ex prisoners and creepy adults with far too many secrets...usually drunks or drug addicts.




I understood you loud and clear...Obviously it is YOU who havent been on this board long enough or you would have known by now that I am a wife of a sex crimes detective....



Soooo...Do I have to draw a map in crayons for you, so that you may get where my standpoint is?
 
Oh? Again, how is it a question?
It was a philosophical question.


The only people who say it's an invasion of privacy have something to hide.
I say it is and I have nothing to hide and this statement of yours says more about you than you may think.

It is an invasion of privacy no matter how one cuts it. If you value the constitution and the bill of rights, philosophically this is disturbing. How we invade privacy and when are issues we tread lightly. Do I support child molesters? Of course not. But---justice is blind. When people realize that we can have an intelligent and informed conversation that is rational and reasonable.


If you're paranoid and distrustful of anything like me, you never trusted any communication medium to begin with.
It isn't so much a matter of trust as it is degrees of trust.


It doesn't matter what I think from a philosophical standpoint. All that matter is that they justify it and do it and neither you nor I can stop them.
whether it matters or not is another question all together, but the thread starter was asking exactly what you are raging against...a question from a philosophical standpoint.
 
I understood you loud and clear...Obviously it is YOU who havent been on this board long enough or you would have known by now that I am a wife of a sex crimes detective....



Soooo...Do I have to draw a map in crayons for you, so that you may get where my standpoint is?
no offense, but sex crimes detectives creep me out big time. There are some who are grounded and stable---I will assume yours is---for your sake.

I have no interest in who you are. This is an anonymous message board and if you say you are the Queen of Sheeba, who am I to argue with you?

again, yours or anyone else's standpoint is beside the point. the question was a philosophical one.

hold onto the crayons, they may help you later.
 
The question remains and HAS to include the Constitution to be grounded in any sense of reality. The 4th Amendment protects from "unreasonable" searches. With a proper warrant there is absolutely no reason that one can reasonably claim a search of ones computer and internet habits is an invasion of privacy. Unless it is your claim that ANY search no matter how justified is "unreasonable".

One can not simply ignore the facts and come to any kind of informed opinion.

So is it your position that any search of ones private property is an "invasion of Privacy" no matter how justified or legal it may be? If not please explain how you have decided a computer and its use is special.
 
The question remains and HAS to include the Constitution to be grounded in any sense of reality. The 4th Amendment protects from "unreasonable" searches. With a proper warrant there is absolutely no reason that one can reasonably claim a search of ones computer and internet habits is an invasion of privacy. Unless it is your claim that ANY search no matter how justified is "unreasonable".

One can not simply ignore the facts and come to any kind of informed opinion.

So is it your position that any search of ones private property is an "invasion of Privacy" no matter how justified or legal it may be? If not please explain how you have decided a computer and its use is special.

as a philosophical principle all searches by a government stink. reasonable searches are to be tolerated and not celebrated. every search not agreed to by a person is in fact an invasion of privacy, but we make exceptions for reasonable invasions of privacy. sometimes necessary, many times not so--a principle abused. that is why the framers put in protections and a process for redress of grievances. power corrupts.

a computer is not special, but what we do with them and what is available to authorities is still untested. if i went to molester sites because somebody mentioned them in a thread, or anarchist sites, or revolutionary sites, or al qaeda(I visited fanatical muslim sites to see what they were saying), from a link or to see what they were saying and it is stored on my computer...is that open to interpretation? searches of computers and the info it gives up is without certain contexts,and---- I fear the info gained and being 'interpreted' is open to a sort of thought control policing.

I follow all kinds of links. I do not fear anything but I am aware anyone could make any kind of case they want against me absent the context of what I was doing in those searches. searching computers is like searching a person's mind for thoughts and ideas---and i/ for one would NEVER trust authorities especially law enforcement with interpreting my thoughts, ideas and actions.

computers are not special but what I think or do with thoughts and interests is.
 
as a philosophical principle all searches by a government stink. reasonable searches are to be tolerated and not celebrated. every search not agreed to by a person is in fact an invasion of privacy, but we make exceptions for reasonable invasions of privacy. sometimes necessary, many times not so--a principle abused. that is why the framers put in protections and a process for redress of grievances. power corrupts.

a computer is not special, but what we do with them and what is available to authorities is still untested. if i went to molester sites because somebody mentioned them in a thread, or anarchist sites, or revolutionary sites, or al qaeda(I visited fanatical muslim sites to see what they were saying), from a link or to see what they were saying and it is stored on my computer...is that open to interpretation? searches of computers and the info it gives up is without certain contexts,and---- I fear the info gained and being 'interpreted' is open to a sort of thought control policing.

I follow all kinds of links. I do not fear anything but I am aware anyone could make any kind of case they want against me absent the context of what I was doing in those searches. searching computers is like searching a person's mind for thoughts and ideas---and i/ for one would NEVER trust authorities especially law enforcement with interpreting my thoughts, ideas and actions.

computers are not special but what I think or do with thoughts and interests is.

The simple act of going somewhere on an internet is evidence of nothing. It only becomes relevant if OTHER things occurred or are linked to that visit.

So if the authorities have other evidence you committed a murder then the fact you visited sites on your computer that discuss and explain how to murder someone or how to cover it up becomes relevant. If the authorities have "reasonable" suspicion and have a warrant and the search uncovers things linked to that suspicion then that information becomes relevant.

You know it as well as anyone with half a brain.
 
The simple act of going somewhere on an internet is evidence of nothing. It only becomes relevant if OTHER things occurred or are linked to that visit.
relevant? yes. but proof of something? only if you know somebody's mind/thoughts. a case could be built for a crime with computer files as part of a case, but I fear we will not keep a strict control over it. we will go too far with it as we always do.


So if the authorities have other evidence you committed a murder then the fact you visited sites on your computer that discuss and explain how to murder someone or how to cover it up becomes relevant.
relevant to the prosecution----not to the police. the job of the police is getting out of hand here. we have cops trolling the internet(s) setting up stings. it's creepy. it is open to too much abuse. on teh other hand i have no issue with the police monitoring criminal activity over the internet,



If the authorities have "reasonable" suspicion and have a warrant and the search uncovers things linked to that suspicion then that information becomes relevant.
relevant in what context? strict boundries need to be set up to protect individuals and teh credibility and relevancy of police work


You know it as well as anyone with half a brain.
things are not as black and white as you portray them to be, nuance and context is everything
 
Nuance and context? Ya right, you would just deny they authorities the right to see it, that sure is nuanced and contextual.

And the Prosecutor gets most of his information from the cops, this idea that the cops shouldn't search but that the Prosecutor is ok to use information is a dodge.

I know all about the fact that cops and prosecutors decide ahead of time what happened and bend the facts to meet the theory. That does not change the fact that if 4 days before my wife is murdered I am web surfing sites on how to murder people that information is relevant to the case.
 
On your point about the police AS - common law and common law-derived justice systems seek to control police behaviour by excluding evidence which is obtained unfairly or in contravention of the law (allowing for judicial discretion). In France the police are controlled in serious criminal investigations by examining magistrates who supervise the police and issue warrants to further an investigation. The rules of evidence in a French criminal court are far less strict than in common law jurisdictions. Just another way of looking at it.
 
The entire premise of this thread is a bit dopey. No, the cops shouldn't be monitoring people's surfing habits without justification. Yes, they should obtain a warrant and check them if someone is charged with murdering their wife. No different than if the guy had been at Border's buying, "The 10 easiest ways to Off One's Spouse."
 
The entire premise of this thread is a bit dopey. No, the cops shouldn't be monitoring people's surfing habits without justification. Yes, they should obtain a warrant and check them if someone is charged with murdering their wife. No different than if the guy had been at Border's buying, "The 10 easiest ways to Off One's Spouse."

:clap2:


this is the place you said was so...

was it because mani was here?
 
A computer is not someone's home. He killed his own family for goodness sakes. If it going through his computer files, or researching what he does online helps prove his guilt, then yes, use it.
 
That's right. If they have a reason to look, then of course they can get a warrant to look, and should be able to.

Take that, bad guys. You guys always get caught.
 
A computer is not someone's home. He killed his own family for goodness sakes. If it going through his computer files, or researching what he does online helps prove his guilt, then yes, use it.
a home has nothing to do with it and as far as his crime...justice is blind. stop acting like you care so much and others don't.

for goodness sakes stop preaching
 
The question was very specific, THIS or THAT. Yet some of you want to divorce the second part completely from the question. Sorry it does not work that way.
 
It was a philosophical question.


I say it is and I have nothing to hide and this statement of yours says more about you than you may think.

It is an invasion of privacy no matter how one cuts it. If you value the constitution and the bill of rights, philosophically this is disturbing. How we invade privacy and when are issues we tread lightly. Do I support child molesters? Of course not. But---justice is blind. When people realize that we can have an intelligent and informed conversation that is rational and reasonable.


It isn't so much a matter of trust as it is degrees of trust.


whether it matters or not is another question all together, but the thread starter was asking exactly what you are raging against...a question from a philosophical standpoint.

What would there be to rage against? I do get rather entertained at the novice attempts at psychoanalysis based on words on a screen by posters who wish to put a spin on something though.

From a philosophical standpoint, interrupting someone from sitting and staring at a brick wall to ask so much as a simple question is an invasion of privacy.

I have the utmost respect for the ideals behind the US Constitution, and the utmost contempt for the politicians who have twisted it to suit their agendas at any given time since its ratification to current date. I am sure however, each of us has our own, often-conflicting ideals of just what the ideals embody.

The fact remains, so long as the law says it is not an invasion of privacy, and regardless the will of the people the judiciary is willing to support such laws, there's no question. What you believe personally will not post your bail.
 

Forum List

Back
Top