"The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it
to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested
without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get your
emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards." - Edward Snowden
The Fourth Amendment, NSA and Metadata
The Bill of Rights is not an accumulation of mere words that have become expendable, when the government finds them
inconvenient. The Fourth Amendment is especially an example of a promise of protecting natural rights, long
ignored and often violated. While much of court precedents involve policing powers, these decisions have profound application
to NSA metadata mining. With the first anniversary of the Edward Snowden disclosures,
no government official or agency can continue to deny the existence of the total surveillance state.
The NSA's "General
Warrants": How the Founding Fathers Fought an 18th Century Version of the President's
Illegal Domestic Spying, provides an indispensible example of the fundamental conflict that always exists, when magistrates
envision their duty as the maintenance of government supremacy over the inherent autonomy of individuals.
"It is "familiar history," the U.S. Supreme Court noted in Payton v. New
York, that "indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of ‘general warrants’ were
the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment." When James Madison drafted the
Fourth Amendment, he relied heavily on the Massachusetts Constitution, which forbade warrants that did not specify the "persons
or objects of search, arrest, or seizure."
the post World War II era, the radical shift from the remnants of the former Republic, into a global authority, where the
meaning of the law has no correlation to the intent of original constitutional conviction, is undeniable. What was enemy signals
interception became complete domestic scrutiny and monitoring. Lost for all practical legal purposes was The Central Meaning of
the Fourth Amendment. Tracey Maclin provides a historic account and judicial context on how the
constitution was perverted.
rational basis model essentially asks whether the police have acted irrationally while intruding upon the Fourth Amendment
rights of individuals. The Court's model rarely requires warrants authorizing searches, disfavors vigorous judicial oversight
of police searches, and prefers deference to police procedures as the mode of constitutional decision-making.
Most importantly, a rational basis model severely diminishes our rights under the Fourth
Amendment. As the private container cases demonstrate, a rational basis model does not subject police searches to vigorous
judicial check. In many instances, the police are free to undertake unsupervised and suspicionless searches, even when less
intrusive means are available to serve the state's interests. In other contexts, warrantless searches are permitted when the
only justification for such a search is police convenience.
the end, the Court finds that all of these searches are reasonable because they rationally serve legitimate state interests.
This degree of deference to police searches is at odds with the central purpose of the Fourth Amendment, which is distrust
of discretionary police power. The Fourth Amendment was not inserted in the Bill of Rights so that judges could meekly defer
to government intrusions of privacy; rather, the amendment was designed to control such intrusions."
The NSA purports that national security not only encompasses data mining on all
citizens, but also allows for effective total immunity from oversight and accountability. This mindset expands the ordinary
boundaries of maintaining the peace into a tyrannical police state. The commitment to Open Government and Transparency is
as believable as the fairy tale that anyone can become President.
Abdication of judicial responsibility is so blatant that the
century old decision by Justice William R. Day, Weeks v. United States (1914), U.S. Supreme Court, has no substantive application when the NSA
deems that its ECHELON monitoring systems require that a PRISM be kept on everyone person. Also, watch the video, One Year Of Leaks That
Turned Surveillance Conspiracy Theory to FACT!
"The point of the Fourth Amendment which
often is not grasped by zealous officers is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable
men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate,
instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime. Any assumption
that evidence sufficient to support a magistrate's disinterested determination to issue a search warrant will justify the
officers in making a search without a warrant would reduce the Amendment to a nullity, and leave the people's homes secure
only in the discretion of police officers. Crime, even in the privacy of one's own quarters, is, of course, of grave concern
to society, and the law allows such crime to be reached on proper showing. The right of officers to thrust themselves into
a home is also a grave concern, not only to the individual, but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security
and freedom from surveillance. When the right of privacy must reasonably yield to the right of search is, as a rule, to be
decided by a judicial officer, not by a policeman or government enforcement agent.
are exceptional circumstances in which, on balancing the need for effective law enforcement against the right of privacy,
it may be contended that a magistrate's warrant for search may be dispensed with. But this is not such a case. No reason is
offered for not obtaining a search warrant except the inconvenience to the officers and some slight delay necessary to prepare
papers and present the evidence to a magistrate. These are never very convincing reasons and, in these circumstances, certainly
are not enough to bypass the constitutional requirement. No suspect was fleeing or likely to take flight. The search was of
permanent premises, not of a movable vehicle. No evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction, except
perhaps the fumes which we suppose in time will disappear. But they were not capable at any time of being reduced to possession
for presentation to court. The evidence of their existence before the search was adequate and the testimony of the officers
to that effect would not perish from the delay of getting a warrant.
the officers in this case were excused from the constitutional duty of presenting their evidence to a magistrate, it is difficult
to think of a case in which it should be required."
cyber environment of digital existence does not void the need for probable cause. However, the NSA does not observe such constitutional
needs when the personal computer is the depository of your private papers. Other than advancements in technological communications
and archiving, the precedent of the "exclusionary rule", established in this case, is the ubiquitous causality from
NSA collection that vacuums up every byte of data, using the presumption that everyone is a criminal. Even if not charged
for an offense at this time, the information awaits future prosecutorial discretion.
So, when in the case Klayman v. Obama, "On December 16, Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court for
the District of Columbia ruled that the metadata collection program violates the Fourth Amendment", hopes were high that
at least one federal judge had the courage to uphold the constitution. Metadata and the Fourth
Amendment then cites that soon thereafter, the weight and magnate of the intelligence
snooping force felt the usual letdown, when American Civil Liberties
Union v. Clapper was decided.
December 27, Judge William H. Pauley III came to the opposite conclusion. Contrary to Judge Leon’s belief that the metadata
program has not been effective, Judge Pauley argued that the program could potentially have stopped the 9/11 attacks. However,
the crux of his determination was that the Smith precedent applies and that no Fourth Amendment claim can be made out for
Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the metadata related to their phone calls."
Note the bizarre endorsement of this absurdly twisted legal logic that conveniently destroys
the intentional importance of preserving essential privacy that corrupt courts want to make conditional.
"Among the requirements for a successful Fourth Amendment claim is establishing that
a reasonable expectation of privacy was violated. On this point, the most relevant precedent to the metadata cases is 1979’s
Smith v. Maryland, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding
the telephone numbers they call, for that information is freely provided to telephone companies and it is generally known
that telephone companies keep this information in their records."
the expectation of privacy is not subject to the redefining of what are reasonable restrictions that the government places
upon its agencies. The reason why the NSA is so dangerous stems from the total lack of observing that the spying on ordinary
citizens is a profound repudiation of basic and inalienable rights of each individual.
systematic and surreptitious gathering also has No Fourth Amendment right
in metadata embedded in posted photo, so say the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Before long, this
parade of government inspection and retention will subject even the hermit and the deliberate recluse to a profile third degree.
It is a never-ending process until snatching your individual identity is the ultimate outcome.
The snoops view you as an enemy of the state, unless you can prove
differently, whereas the reality is that The Strange World of NSA
Mind Control is the true foe of the liberty of people and a free nation.
SARTRE – June 9,