Very true Sharni.

Yes’m.

Other than perhaps the Vatican, Monaco, and Liechtenstein, I can think of few nations which should naturally be excluded from that list.

Can you?

I've heard more than a few people take the side of 'Well, if you don't have anything to hide there's no problem.'

I think it's a bad stance to take. They (those conducting the wiretaps) may just decide to change what they'll looking for. Right now it's a question of 'terrorist activities', but what if the target becomes lewd and lascivious behavior?

Also, (in my understanding), wiretaps of this sort can be put in place without a warrant, but the warrant is to be obtained after the fact to allow for situations where time is a factor. To not do so is illegal.

Nope...i dont believe anyone should be excluded...1 in all in is my stance

Certainly catching criminals and terrorists is a good thing. Should we allow them to enter our homes or have access to our computers whenever they want also... without a warrant?

And it does seem unlikely that they would target lewdness, but that's merely an example that would hit close to home for many of us and we should not forget the change in what is legally allowed on websites in the US concerning sexuality. That was something I doubted would be targeted, and yet it happened.

Are "limit" and "righteous zealot" compatible terms or oxymorons? :confused:

I have no prob with them entering my home or having access to my puter (which i'm sure they probably do)

I don't have Big Brother is watching syndrome *L* they can watch me all they like...i'm a pretty boring person

As for the law on pornography...the only things that are targeted here and in the US are illegal activities...and that is how it should be

The problem for me is that here they are deciding that some things that I see as perfectly normal, are obscene and making/enforcing laws to protect us from these, now deemed to be illegal activities, such as touching my vagina in a picture on the web. I think if they want to look on my computer to see if I made and distributed said picture they should have to have a warrant. I think currently they do and I want to make sure this administration understands that.

Aqua,

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but I get the impression that you think that U.S. law enforcement officials can search our homes and computers without a warrant.

I believe that is very much the exception rather than the rule. U.S. law enforcement agencies are limited by the first and forth amendments to the constitution which protect the U.S. citizen’s freedom of speech and their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Judge Taylor ruled the intercept program unconstitutional as it allowed monitoring of U.S. citizens' phone calls abroad without a warrant.

I am not suggesting that wiretaps and searches cannot take place, only that a court must issue a warrant before they can legally occur. The FBI has the authority to place wiretaps. Prior to doing so, they must obtain a warrant from a Federal judge after showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. The FBI can also get wiretap warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), with fewer restrictions, but only if gathering foreign intelligence is the "significant purpose" for the warrant.

The Patriot Act made it easier for the FBI to get a warrant, and now allows nearly any search to be made in secret.

So yes, we have lost some our traditional civil liberties, but in the absence of a warrant, a wiretap / search / intercept of a U.S. citizen’s communication remains unconstitutional. Regrettable but true. I try to keep in mind the context within which these losses occurred, and that we here in the States still retain far more civil liberties than in many other countries. Small solace, I’ll admit, but the enemy has demonstrated an ability to take advantage of all available opportunities.

"Can", as in "have the ability to"? (The actual definition of "can") Yes, they can.
"Can", as in "is it legal for them to do so"? No, they can't.
"Can" as in, "do they do it anyway"? Yes, they do. If one believes otherwise, one is delusional. But:



So, in your particular case, you're not delusional: but I majorly disagree with the rarity of these incidents. I believe it's done routinely.



But only in some cases. And the cases where this is the situation are gradually being eroded in the name of fighting "terrorism".

You must remember that this is coming from an administration that:
1. Has directly lied about the origins of said terrorism.
2. Manipulated intelligence information, both for the purposes of starting a foreign war, and for domestic political purposes.
3. Directly lied about and fabricated said intelligence information.
4. Has allegedly set up secret prisons to hold indefinitely, without charges, and without notification of the the International Red Cross, the families of those incarcerated, or any watchdog group, people arbitrarily designated as "illegal combatants".
5. Has introduced legislation to secretly designate US citizens as "terrorists" or "illegal combatants", hold them indefinitely, without charge, and deny them access to legal representation and deny them access to the "evidence" against them if and when the powers-that-be do decide to conduct a "trial".
6. Is directing the NSA, the FBI, the Dept of Homeland Security, and other law enforcement agencies to conduct wholesale interception and recording of US citizens communications, hoping to somehow catch terrorists by keying in on certain arbitrarily-designated "key" words or phrases.

Given all this, warrantless, illegal wiretaps are somehow limited or the exception?

No way.

There is one aspect that everyone seems to have missed.

It's alright to eavesdrop on foreigners like me, with no thought for my right to privacy.

The concept that Americans are superior to the point that they have global rights not open to folks like me is a little worrying.