UK has become a police state

[Into the Night]

Nope. It does not. The Constitution does not guarantee privacy. The word "privacy" doesn't even appear in the Constitution. You are pointing to apparent invasions of privacy as somehow being violations of the Constitution. They're not.

If you believe privacy should be protected under the Constitution, push for a Constitutioinal amendment. I'll support you.


It does not violate the 4th Amendment. As long as the information collected is not used against you, and not made for public use, there is nothing in the Constitution to which you can point as a violation.


One thing you are forgetting is that warrantless searches can occur. What happens when they do? Answer: All information is thrown out of court. So, what if you are looking for a suicide bomber in an airport? You search everybody, find the bomber, neutralize him, and have all the information thrown out of court.

OK, I'll live with that.


There's no violation.


Nobody's travel is restricted. Some people are inconvenienced. Inconvenience is not a violation of the Constitution. Further, you are subjected to an unconstitutional search to travel. That IS a restriction. Don't try to deny this.


I get it. It won't be long before ubiquitous cameras connected to retina/iris scan databases will identify everyone going through our airports and bus terminals. Technology is redefining "privacy" every day.

4th Amendment -- "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."

What about this right don't you get? That's called "privacy". The federal government (and State governments, which are also bound by this amendment), have NO authority to snoop en masse. That includes searching you and your luggage. That includes the right (if otherwise legal), to own slaves and not have the government take them from you.

It is this amendment that started the War of Secession, and with good reason.

Travel IS restricted for political reasons for some people. That is unconstitutional. Don't try to deny this. Further, requiring an unconstitutional search to travel IS a restriction. Don't try to deny this or redefine words.

Technology changes nothing in the Constitution. As far as using a camera is concerned, that is nothing different than someone watching you walk by in public. Face recognition software is no different than that someone recognizing you (but not as reliable). That is NOT an invasion of any privacy, and it is not a search.

 

[IBDaMann]

4th Amendment -- "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."

I'm aware of what the 4th Amendment reads. It would appear that you could stand to take another look at it.

The 4th Amendment does not prohibit searches and seizures. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It is reasonable to search people under the credible suspicion of a bombing attempt, to seize bombs under credible suspicion of a bombing attempt, and bombs can be returned if it turns out that it was all a mistake. That is all reasonable.

The 4th Amendment does not say that warrants are required for searches and seizures. It governs how warrants are to be issued.

The founders did not include the word privacy in the Constitution. The 4th Amendment is all about limiting government's ability to put you in prison. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that prevents "authorities" from protecting the public in ways that do not involve putting you in jail.

Your privacy and your convenience are not protected by the Constitution, but domestic tranquility, the common defence and the general welfare most certainly are. If the President can prevent a disaster/emergency merely by violating your privacy or causing you inconvenience, then that is what he is expected to do, even without a warrant or court order.

What about this right don't you get? That's called "privacy".

Nope. That is called "The government can't just throw you in jail on a whim." There's no "privacy" in there. Like I said, nothing is stopping you from pushing for a Constitutional amendment and I'll support you.

The federal government (and State governments, which are also bound by this amendment), have NO authority to snoop en masse.

Everybody can snoop and investigate and lookey-loo. We the People need to hold our governments' feet to the fire to behave as We prefer, and if you want snooping to not happen then you need to champion legislation to prohibit that, but you don't get to declare that the Constitution reads "privacy" when it doesn't.

That includes searching you and your luggage.

You and your luggage can be examined and you can be not put in jail and not convicted of any crime.

That includes the right (if otherwise legal), to own slaves and not have the government take them from you.

They can be held until any dispute is resolved and then returned/delivered as appropriate.

It is this amendment that started the War of Secession, and with good reason.

My position is that the War of Northern Agression was caused by the North aggressively attacking the South.

Travel IS restricted for political reasons for some people. That is unconstitutional. Don't try to deny this.

I'm going to deny this. I have no idea about what you speak. Who is prohibited from walking through all 50 States and from swimming to Hawaii?

Technology changes nothing in the Constitution.

Agreed.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm aware of what the 4th Amendment reads. It would appear that you could stand to take another look at it.

The 4th Amendment does not prohibit searches and seizures. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. It is reasonable to search people under the credible suspicion of a bombing attempt, to seize bombs under credible suspicion of a bombing attempt, and bombs can be returned if it turns out that it was all a mistake. That is all reasonable.

Searching en masse is NOT searching for a credible suspicion of anything. Don't try to claim it is. Searching en masse is an unreasonable search.

The 4th Amendment does not say that warrants are required for searches and seizures. It governs how warrants are to be issued.

YES IT DOES.

The founders did not include the word privacy in the Constitution. The 4th Amendment is all about limiting government's ability to put you in prison. There is nothing in the 4th Amendment that prevents "authorities" from protecting the public in ways that do not involve putting you in jail.

DON'T TRY TO PLAY WORD GAMES WITH ME!

Your privacy and your convenience are not protected by the Constitution,

YES IT IS!

but domestic tranquility, the common defence and the general welfare most certainly are.

These are NOT protections. The general welfare clause is NOT an authority. It is a directive. You cannot use the General Welfare clause to cancel any part of the Constitution.

If the President can prevent a disaster/emergency merely by violating your privacy or causing you inconvenience, then that is what he is expected to do, even without a warrant or court order.

WRONG. The President is not a king. He MUST conform to the limitations of the Constitution. Otherwise he is no better than what he is trying to "protect" you from!

Nope. That is called "The government can't just throw you in jail on a whim." There's no "privacy" in there. Like I said, nothing is stopping you from pushing for a Constitutional amendment and I'll support you.

Do not confuse Article I and the 6th amendment with the 4th amendment.

Everybody can snoop and investigate and lookey-loo.

WRONG! They can lookey-loo only in public spaces. They CANNOT install cameras in homes, in private spaces!

We the People need to hold our governments' feet to the fire to behave as We prefer, and if you want snooping to not happen then you need to champion legislation to prohibit that, but you don't get to declare that the Constitution reads "privacy" when it doesn't.

IT DOES! DON'T TRY TO PLAY WORD GAMES WITH ME!

You and your luggage can be examined and you can be not put in jail and not convicted of any crime.

Not according to the Constitution! General seaches en masse are unreasonable searches and do not involve suspicion of anything.

They can be held until any dispute is resolved and then returned/delivered as appropriate.

WRONG! The 4th amendment prohibits seizure in that way!

My position is that the War of Northern Agression was caused by the North aggressively attacking the South.

You are forgetting why the South seceded.

I'm going to deny this. I have no idea about what you speak. Who is prohibited from walking through all 50 States and from swimming to Hawaii?

DON'T TRY SPECIAL PLEADING FALLACIES WITH ME!