What is Digg?40 Comments
- Luq07, on 10/11/2007, -3/+39Hallelujah! Common Sense in the Courts at last! I thought we had seen the last of Common Sense with the Patriot Act
- painted82, on 10/11/2007, -1/+29No, *****? It took an appeals court to confirm what the constitution clearly ***** states?
I think it's time to criminalize violators of the constitution inside our government. We can start with the president all the way down to the members of congress. - oepapel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13"isn't most email unencrypted text being passed on from public server to public server? how came people expect privacy from that?"
Isn't most postal mail wrapped in a thin piece of paper? How can people expect privacy from that?
Aren't most phone calls made within earshot of others? How can people expect privacy from that? - Dominatus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
...That's how. - imjustsayin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Phone calls are unencrypted speech transmitted publicly, do you want them to listen to those without a warrant?
- vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10THANK YOU!!!
There's still hope for the United States of America! - vroom101, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10This story has been sitting in the DIGG queue for 7+ hours too long!
- boobees, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Why does it feel like, as members of the general populace, that we have virtually nobody in our own government fighting for us. Why are we reduced to applauding a decision that basically reinforces our already guarenteed rights? Things shouldn't be this bad.
- PunkRockRalph, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Looks like the court is finally rising to the occasion.
- johndi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9It's looking like plans to stack the courts may have failed. I was even more surprised yesterday when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that passengers in a traffic have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the stop the other day. Hopefully the current bunch will over rule some of their past decisions that stripped rights away from people.
- hbweb500, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Bob is the main character in Enzyte's commercials. Enzyte is an ED drug.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8hyjEGkm-A - Rileyper, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Watch it Microsoft Bob is ole school
(and it was successful) - imjustsayin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Reading email without a warrant has been going on for a LONG time. I hope this decision stands, and is actually enforced.
What do you know? It only took the courts about 15 years to catch on the fact that email was private (not secure) communication. - oepapel, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I think this is great! Finally, common sense from the courts!
- keyboardduder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Theres too much bureaucracy. Just tell the FBI and the president in a phone call that if they do it again they lost their jobs. SIMPLE
- johndi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Redemption289, the President appoints judges to the circuit courts as well. Our federal court system is much more political than you think.
- soogy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6@cablefish
WOOSH! -->
(___)
(o o)
\_/ - joelito, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Steven Warshak, the man behind the "natural male enhancement" product Enzyte often advertised on late-night TV, has successfully challenged the government's ability to access his e-mails without obtaining a search warrant or giving notification to Warshak."
Must be smiling all the way to ... Somewhere - kreneskyp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3queue the "if you dont have anything to hide" arguments.
(or are they too worried about the emails that the RNC has been deleting) - zachblume, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3The courts are literally singlehandedly holding back the rest of government from total stupidity.
Thank you checks and balances. And after 2008 hopefully all the other balances will be re-balanced. Hopefully. - aliengoods, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Great!. The courts made a ruling in favor of the constitution. But isn't that what they're there for?
Also, what's to stop Bush from continuing to break the law. Nothing. They're going to collect emails until a new administration comes in that puts a stop to it. That may be in 2008, 2012, or never. - williamdyer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@Error
Hmmm, are you saying we have some limited, enumerated set of guaranteed rights?
Whoever gave you a passing grade in history wants it back. - bifbangpow, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4dont count on this decision to be enforced. breaking the law is pretty much their business.
- nanboya, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Encrypt heavily; even though that might not stop them eventually, at least it puts a thorn in their side and slows them down.
- SgtBeavis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I hope this is appealed to the Supreme Court. That way we'd get a final word on it.
In all honesty Bush's new SCOTUS appointments will only bite him in the ass on this one. Both are constitutionalists and, IMO, will vote to uphold the appellate decision. - Stark, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2i don't know if this is good for consumers (getting ripped off on bogus pills), but if it helps restore the 4th ammendment, it's a step in the right direction
- Redemption289, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@johndi
Court stacking has nothing to do w/ this case. It was an appellate court, not the supreme court.
Also, I'm pretty sure the ruling concerned stored e-mails, not ones being sent (there is kind of a difference). - HexeL, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Bout time SPAM served some use.
- griffin7, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3This is such an excellent development. Our constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure are suitably enhanced. This is a victory for all of us. Well except for the neo-Nazi party members parading around in their Brooks Brothers suits pretending to be Republicans and Democrats.
- Kinjiru, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@ cablefish
and remember.. BOB was brought to you by the makers of EDLIN, the paper clip from hell and the 640k barrier! - weberik, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Why does it feel like, as members of the general populace, that we have virtually nobody in our own government fighting for us."
Perhaps because people disagree about what is good for "the general populace." Bush was elected by popular majority the second time around, remember? Some people value (perceived) security more than they value privacy. For others, the opposite is true. If there were no differences of opinion among members of the general populace, there would be no need for elections, as we'd all just agree on what to do, and go do it. - Error601, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Exactly. You don't own the files on someone else's computer. Phone calls are covered under other laws. Of course making a logical point gets you dug down in digg kiddie land.
- cmustin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0You mean legislation should be taken care of by the legislative branch and not the judicial, just like Article III states? Finally, a voice of reason in a cacophany of voices who don't understand how the government actually works. :)
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I don't believe the law supports them on this one. First if your email is sitting on someone else's server, it's their property and not yours. Like it or not, that's the facts. An ISP is not a regulated telecom so the privacy rules also don't apply. Email privacy regulation must be done in Congress and not in the courts.
- demidog, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1The way to protect yourself is to use a pop client and set it to delete the email from the server when you read it. That way, even if they DO obtain a warrant or court order, there will be no mail stored on their mail servers. If they really want it that bad, then they have to get a valid search warrant to look on your computer.
- Error601, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Are you claiming that you own someone else's property? Failed logic?
- cablefish, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2@rileyper:
Microsoft Bob was a Microsoft software product, released in March 1995, which provided a new, nontechnical interface to desktop computing operations. Despite its ambitious nature, Bob failed to penetrate the market and was Microsoft’s most visible failure as a company.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob - Error601, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Because it's not a guaranteed right. Your rights end where someone else's begin. Someone else owning the files containing your emails means you don't own them. If they were transferred to your own computer the situation would be different.
- nazsco, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1isn't most email unencrypted text being passed on from public server to public server?
how came people expect privacy from that? - cablefish, on 10/11/2007, -17/+1Who is Bob?
edit: Nevermind. I'm going assume it's that horribly failed Microsoft product, Microsoft Bob
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is