"Government Monitoring of Cell Phones?" by Craig Covello
The Government May Be Given Unrestricted Access to Your Location in Real Time. Today, the First Federal Appeals Court has a case on its docket 08-4227.
"In the matter of the application of the United States of America for an order directing a provider of electronic communication service to disclose records to the government. United States Of America, Appellant."
What does this mean? It means that the government wants cell phone companies to provide information regarding your whereabouts without a judicial warrant. Arguing on behalf of your privacy will be Kevin Bankston who is an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Arguing against your privacy will be the US Department of Justice lawyers who claim that the fourth amendment of the United States Constitution does not apply to the privacy of phone company records.
What is the position of the Obama administration? Predictably, the administration is on record as saying that Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" concerning cell phones.
This opinion is also shared by US District Judge William Pauley, a Clinton appointee, in his 2009 opinion involving a case about drug trafficking. The government's position against privacy is based upon legal precedents set in the 1970s which purport that any record held by a third-party about us, regardless of how it is collected, is not protected by the fourth amendment. In essence, confidential relationships you may have with a company or even individual is subject to government scrutiny. This legal opinion is 35 years old, before existence of Google, email, Facebook and certainly cell phones. But if I interpret it correctly, government access would also apply to bank records, insurance records, medical records and organizational memberships. All this information could be gathered without the check and balance of the courts.
We all know that President George W. Bush pushed for passage of the patriot act during his presidency. In case you've forgotten, the patriot act allows the federal government to institute wiretaps on American citizens without a search warrant based upon the overarching rationalization of national security. The name "patriot act" is questionable since most Americans may not consider unrestricted wiretapping as "patriotic". In any event, liberal Democrats were passionately opposed to the concept of government spying on citizens without any case-by-case authorization from the courts. Now it appears that the Democrats are no longer concerned with privacy when Obama gives the thumbs-up to government tracking of citizens using cell phone technology.
Maybe they really are concerned but afraid to speak up. Someone might know where they are.
For more details, visit CNET at: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html
Copyright 2010 by Craig Covello. All rights reseved. Used with Permission.
Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Craig Covello, George W. Bush
posted by Frank T. DeMartini @ 2:52 AM
1 Comments:
Rise above the noise level and get back to basics. Conservative beliefs hold sacred the limiting, opposing and reducing government thus being always in support of anti-statism. Sovereignty is vested in the people.
There is no substitute for plain talk, reaffirming our beliefs and acting on them. Someone recently said “Conservatism cannot surf to victory on populous dissent.” The Republican/Conservative/Tea party can unite under six banners. First is the self explanatory national security. There is no opposition to unwavering need for Fiscal Responsibility. The energy independence platform embraces coal, hydro-electric, wind, solar, natural gas and nuclear sources under the balanced doctrine of efficiency and environmental stewardship. Where is the call-to-arms against government spending not heard? Failure to lower taxes can only be equated to obstacles to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And the engine that sustains this philosophy is the free market solution necessarily defended against irrational policies and egocentric greed. The power elite cartel must be harnessed. Our government must serve the people
Patrick Moynihan DNY long bemoaned the theft of social security and the damage the progressive (yes, as in Progressive Party) tax that is plundering NY, and all densely populated municipalities, of its wealth by redistribution or socialistic fundamentals. The redistribution of wealth has long been underway in every heavily populated state.
The climate change controversy is fairly easy to embrace if one is fair. Stop the hype, pseudo-scamming science, and the self enrichment schemes of the prophets of doom. Clear up the smog and return to the reasonable principles of environmental stewardship. The “Ice” or “Glacial Age” of 20,000 years ago disappeared with little or no contribution from the “global warming “effects attributable to anything “human”. Separate normal historical environmental cycles from junk science. Sadly and predictably scientists will return results favorable to the expectations of funding institution. The solution is independent funding of scientific studies. Science has been corrupted. It is now one of the four pillars of deception, the other three being government, media and academia. Why is this important? It is important because it provides entrée to the progressive agenda sustainability.
The comical tea party derangement syndrome ignores the galvanizing, the substantial source of conservative energy coming from the populous that discards party affiliation as so much group think and looks to “talented servants” to carry forward the message and direct the movement. One steers clear of this mistaken transfer of responsibility from the collective to an individual that comes from crowing a “leader.” This approach dictates a tight affinity to “We the People.”
Health Care reform is ugly due to the Chicago mentality, an undemocratic senate, extreme partisanship, and lobbying for pre-emptive deals. And then there is the fat wedge of pork that is defined as compromise instead of corruption. Rahm Emmanuel, not interested in the “best ideas”, has further embarrassed his governance by proclaiming “Let’s be honest. The goal isn’t to see whether I can pass this (healthcare reform) through the executive board of the Brookings Institution.” Now that would have been bipartisan.
When one ponders Health Care reform, it is easy to understand how conservatists lost their way. We were not prime movers on tort reform (or it would have happened under the “Contract with America”). We were not initiators of coverage for preexisting conditions. Where was the ability of free market health insurance across state lines? And shame on us for not giving a “hand-up” to the truly disadvantaged in a noble nation whose foreign aid is legend. Yes, we make misstates, but these mistakes do not define us.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home