| | |
|
LeylaHadiFirstPaper 6 - 06 Mar 2015 - Main.LeylaHadi
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | -- By LeylaHadi - 04 Mar 2015 | |
<
< | What the fear is - the government surveillance. Why regulations can't work - 1st amendment. But can't the 1st amendment be the basis upon which to challenge the government surveillance? Why isn't it?
Isn't a part of the reason why we would never have believed Snowden and are still in a form of paralysis or active denial about it is because we think we are somehow protected by the 1st amendment? Or is my conception of the 1st amendment completely false? | >
> | Isn't a part of the reason why we would never have believed Snowden and are still in a form of paralysis or active denial about it is because we think we are somehow protected by the Fourth and First amendments? | | | Fourth Amendment Protection | |
<
< | The prevalent and archetypical view that spying is done in specific places on specific people who have created suspicion based on their activities is, in our time, false. The popular First World fear over the prospect that the government will replace cops with drones, and where the privacy line will end up when drones take over law enforcement, speaks to the persistent idea that we can only be physically under surveillance. Having our physical actions observed without our consent has been the predominant focus of Fourth Amendment search cases. We have reasonable expected privacy within the home, but not when sea re stationary or transitory in public space. Inspection of physical aspects of the home has been found illegal when made through thermal imaging; yet, our speech, in the public or private domain, has not been given the same level of privacy. While the government may not create any law that hinders upon the freedom to say whatever we will, it does not protect us from having that speech obtained against our will and potentially used against us. | >
> | The prevalent and archetypical view that spying is done in specific places on specific people who have created suspicion based on their activities is, in our time, false. The popular First World fear over the prospect that the government will replace cops with drones, and where the privacy line will end up when drones take over law enforcement, speaks to the persistent idea that we can only be physically under surveillance. Physical searches without our consent or a warrant in a particular space have been the predominant focus of Fourth Amendment search cases, with an emphasis on the reasonable expectation of privacy in that space. We have reasonably expected privacy within the home, but not when we are stationary or transitory in public space. Inspection of physical aspects of the home has been found illegal when made through thermal imaging, and warrantless tapping of the circuits in our home has been found illegal too. Yet, with our speech in the private domain accessible to the government without any physical intrusion or action, the Fourth Amendment has not lived up to its framers' hopes. While the government may not create any law that hinders upon the freedom to say whatever we will, it does not protect us fervently from having that speech obtained against our will and potentially used against us. | | | Only the Physical | |
>
> | The language of the Fourth Amendment speaks to places. Searching someone's speech was not possible in the eighteenth century without obtaining somebody's physical items in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protected one's speech from being illegally examined and obtained because it protected a citizen's "papers" from warrantless search and seizure, which is where speech existed at the time. Technology has expanded the means by which the government can search and seize speech, first through circuits and now packets of data. The Katz Court
Why doesn't the Fourth Amendment cover the expansion? Why should they be able to search our speech? Is it because we don't have a reasonably expectancy of privacy anymore, or because we are so convinced and dependent on the idea that the values of the Fourth Amendment are still being upheld? | | | Comparison of Cases about Physical versus Verbal | | | Protection | |
>
> | What the fear is - the government surveillance. Why regulations can't work - 1st amendment. But can't the 1st amendment be the basis upon which to challenge the government surveillance? Why isn't it? | | | Examples - How Else Could it Possibly Look and the Use of Fear
Two Rights Make A Wrong |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |