You might want to take your sarcasm detector to the shop. My post was definitely intended as sarcasm ;)

Gotcha. By the way, interesting comment re: the 5th Amendment. I hadn't heard or thought of that, although it's a pretty...interesting*...loophole for compelling a testimony from someone who doesn't particularly want to cooperate.

*sed "s/interesting/(sneaky|devious|clever)/"

Are you stepping up to the plate? No?

Then, thank you, EFF, for what you've been doing. Thank you for raising the issues and at least attempting to bring about the change you want to see. The nation owes you a debt of gratitude, despite the grumbling from the A.C. above.

Actually, I think that was Franklin, not Jefferson, but otherwise, yes, you are correct.

The key here being the two phrases you used, "As far as I know..." and "gross violations of the law...[emphasis mine]".

Can you quote book, chapter and verse from the laws on the books in the state and municipality where you live? No? Then you don't know whether or not you have violated any laws. For example, someone once told me that where I live, if the state troopers catch you stopping to take a leak outside, they can arrest you and you will have to register as a sex offender. Keep in mind that I live in a state that is over half a million square miles with a total population of about half a million people. On average, that's roughly one person per square mile. Considering that over half of those people live in a 2000 square mile area, most of the state has a population density considerably less than one person per square mile (and for the record, there aren't a lot of rest stops over most of state, so peeing in the woods is just a fact of life here). The point is, while it's not likely that the Troopers will arrest you for relieving your bladder in the bushes unless you are being absolutely ignorant about it, it is possible. Therefore, the argument that "I have nothing to hide because I have done nothing wrong" is dangerously naive. If you give the authorities a reason to come look for you, there's a better than even chance that they can find something to hang you with.

But the telcos (arguably) didn't comply with all of the legal requirements that existed at the time. There were laws on the books that prohibited wiretapping, and the 4th Amendment prohibits "unreasonable" searches without proper authorization (and, yes, the "unreasonable" clause in the 4th Amendment is a potential loophole; I'll let the lawyers argue about whether or not such requests were "reasonable").

No.

I agree that we should come down like a ton of bricks on those who overstep those bounds, but each and every one of us has a moral and ethical obligation to weigh every request, order or demand from authority before complying. Doing the right thing is not always easy, but that's life. If people, as a whole, would grow a collective backbone, those in authority would be far less inclined to overstep their bounds because they would have the proverbial snowball's chance of succeeding with whatever it is they are trying to do that is unethical or dishonest. As long as we keep complying with authority because "I was just following orders" we are willing accomplices in their evil. That's not the way I want to live my life.

First, let me say that personally, I agree with you. Philosophically, you are exactly right, and I wish our elected leaders, as well as those who elected them, would get a clue.

However, allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. Unfortunately, for many people, it is not at all clear that it is not in the public interest to subvert the public's right as guaranteed by the Constitution. There are, in fact, a number of otherwise sane, rational people who are clamoring for the government to go ahead and subvert whatever rights they have to keep them safe from the "terrists". They have become brainwashed into thinking that there is a radical Islamic hiding behind every corner, just waiting to blow up their airplane, bus, train, etc. As a result, they are more than happy to surrender their rights in the name of "security" because, after all...this is the U.S.A. we're talking about. We're the good guys -- we don't ship people off to the Gulags or concentration camps (cough...cough..."Guantanamo"...cough). We don't have anything to fear from our government, right?

If we want things to change, if we want to return to the principles upon which this country was founded, we have GOT to make people understand that the Constitution exists for a very, very good reason, and that government -- any government, even ours -- WILL abuse the people it is supposed to protect if you allow it to get too powerful.

Legal interpretations are a grey area; that's why lawyers get paid big bucks to argue the finer points of such interpretations. Having said that, I'm not sure how one would get the idea that the 4th Amendment only applies if government attempts to use the data it gathered against you. From the original text:

The right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

It goes on to say that the government cannot issue a warrant based upon illegally obtained data, but it would seem to me that you would be stretching the 4th Amendment to an absurd degree to claim that the government has the right to conduct a search whenever, wherever and however they want so long as they don't actually attempt to prosecute you based on the information they obtain.

Would anyone with some actual legal education care to chime in on this?

We don't do torture, we just waterboard people. Those are two entirely different things.

Don't be asinine.

If you want to paint everyone who claims any kind of faith with the same brush, then you are every bit as delusional and ignorant as any racist, as any xenophobe, or as any other bigot who every existed. Are you a white guy? Congratulations, you are guilty of every evil that white people have ever perpetrated against any other minority "until you [personally] do something about those [other white] people". Oh...my mistake, you are of Middle Eastern heritage...can you say 9/11? Are you male? Then you are guilty of every rape, every abuse, every violent or discriminatory act that males have ever perpetrated against women until you do something about men abusing women. American? Guantanamo Bay, Bay of Pigs, Manifest Destiny...I could go on and on and on, but hopefully, you get the picture. See how that works? Prejudice, no matter how you try to justify it or sugar coat it, is IGNORANCE. Pre-judging any member of any group based on the actions of some other member of that group is stupid. Every person deserves to be judged on the basis of their own actions.

In other words, you are every bit as narrow-minded and bigoted as the people you despise. That's fine with me...if you have to look down on others who don't see things the same way you do in order to feel good about yourself, that's not my problem. But don't mistake your own prejudice for wisdom or enlightenment because it most certainly is neither of those things.

Stereotype much? Yes, there are "religious" people who do -- and have done -- some pretty crappy things throughout history. There are "religious nutcases" who are certainly the "shackled minds" that you mention above. There are also those who claim religious affiliation (for more than purposes of securing a position in a will) who don't fit that mold -- those who are vocal Libertarians, who love science and technology and who abhor censorship. I am one. So are a number of my friends. Kindly refrain from confusing us with those who truly are as bad as you claim, 'kay? Thanks.

Really? You think that because he maintains the position that the powers of government not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states, Ron Paul is anti-Constitutionalist, a hypocrite, a liar and a traitor? Even though I can see how you might think that refusing to support a bill that might, in fact, be Libertarian and even good for the country on the basis that it requires the federal government to usurp a power that it does not legally have as being entirely a Bad Thing, I find it consistent with his philosophy of government, and even a Good Thing. There is a mechanism in place to grant power to the federal government that the Constitution does not already grant: it's called a Constitutional amendment. If the law really is that good, pass an amendment. If the amendment doesn't pass, then there's a pretty good chance that the value of the bill has not been adequately established. If the failure to pass such a bill means that individual states pass bad laws, well, at least it's easier to change a local government than a federal one. Furthermore, if a state law truly sucks that bad, it's far easier to move to another state than to another country. Depending upon where you live and where you move to, you might not even have to quit your job to move (even though I would...it's a heck of a commute to Alaska from anywhere else).

Of course, based exclusively upon his (her?) account name. I mean, that's the only rational basis for agreeing or disagreeing with someone, right? After all, objectively the weighing the veracity (or lack thereof) of a person's comments makes no sense whatsoever, right? </sarc>