Since when is it any big surprise the government spies on the denizens of this country?
I'm not thrilled with the concept but understand it. I am disgusted if such spying was used for political power and political gain instead of using that info and ability to protect said denizens of the USA.
Logic dictates that if the Government wanted the right to spy on us, they (the founders) wouldn't have written the 4th Amendment. That's why it's such a surprise.
As with all rights, the rights enshrined in the Fourth Amendment are not absolute. Government may place reasonable restrictions on privacy rights.
For example:
1. Can one’s phone or internet records be considered ‘property,’ does government accessing these records constitute a ‘seizure,’ and if so does the property owner have a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to that ‘property’?
2. Indeed, is there an expectation of privacy considered reasonable by society as a whole with regard to one’s phone records or internet communications?
3. And does one retain a possessory interest in the ‘property’ that is his phone records, or has that ‘property’ been abandoned once part of public media (digital wireless or internet cable) where he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to the search?
4.The Framers also expected the government to address issues of public safety and National security, the Fourth Amendment was designed to provide a framework in which a balance could be realized between National security and personal liberty.
1. What I do with the internet I pay for, should be none of the government's business. What I say or do on my phone (since it is also connected to the internet) should also be none of their business. I myself have committed no crime against my government. In Smith vs. Maryland (1979), there was no expectation of privacy, since they were just pen registers, nothing more. In this case, they have (in addition to my number), call length, and call location, I entrusted those records to my cell phone provider in good faith that they would not disclose them to anyone.
2. An expectation of privacy should remain unless the progenitor of these records has done something wrong in the eyes of their government. The expectation of privacy should not be diminished arbitrarily and/or stereotypically. You also have the 14th Amendment to consider as well.
3. What a man communicates with his own mind and voice should be attributed to him and not his government, unless as I said in my second statement, he has done something that warrants search or seizure. The 5th Amendment comes into play here, as well as the 4th and 14th.
4. They also expected the citizens not to live in the shadow of a government which has abused its powers. You have more than one amendment coming into play here, the 1st (Right to free expression without reprisal and free assembly) 4th, (illegal search and seizure) 5th (Right to Life, Liberty, and property) and 14th (Right to due process). Not to mention tort law comes into play as well: Intrusion upon seclusion or solitude.
The illegal search comes when you secretly monitor someone's activities without a legitimate reason or individual warrant. As exemplified in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) when you simply surviel the person's home or activities, you have conducted a search. Therefore you need a warrant, and have violated this person's privacy. When you track my location via my cell phone transmissions and the tower, you have intruded on my seclusion and solitude.
In US vs Warshak (2010) the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court held that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of e-mails stored on third party servers and that the content of these emails is subject to Fourth Amendment protection. This little tidbit calls the very actions of the NSA into question.
The law supports the people, not the government, Clayton. We have a reasonable expectation not to be spied on or snooped around on by our government.
