“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. ” —Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
“Fourth Amendment? Never heard of it.”–The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
The Circus has ruled that the gov’t has a right to track you anywhere you go with GPS (planted by them) without a warrant. I am not making this up.
Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn’t violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway – and no reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre – and scary – rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants – with no need for a search warrant.
It is a dangerous decision – one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
No reasonable expectation that the government isn’t tracking your movements? Are we that far gone?
In Maryland they are trying to put a man in jail for videotaping a policeman while he was being arrested. Cops have a reasonable expectation of privacy while performing their public duty but you have none no matter where you go and what you do? This is crazy.
Every week I ask my brother Matthew “Is it time to get the guns and ammo yet?” And every week he says no. At this rate, how much longer will he be able to say that?
August 27, 2010 at 3:06 am
Wow, Archbishop Chaput just said/wrote (mentioning Orwell too), "People who forget who they are can be much more easily manipulated. This was dramatized famously in Orwell’s image of the 'memory hole' in his novel 1984. Today, the history of the Church and the legacy of Western Christianity are being pushed down the memory hole. This is the first lie that we need to face."
It's a must read in my opinion.
August 27, 2010 at 6:27 am
You want your right to privacy honored by the U.S. Government? Get AIDS. Or an abortion. Only the big sins get you off the grid.
August 27, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Get your guns and ammo. If you wait too long you might not be able to.
August 27, 2010 at 1:43 pm
This is insane. And yah… get your guns and ammo now, it's going fast.
August 27, 2010 at 4:28 pm
"Is it time to get the guns and ammo yet?"
the time was yesterday
August 27, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Anyone use the family locator option on their cell phones? I'm glad I could check where my kids are when I'm worried about them but the level of detail available from satellite imagery is scary!
We don't have privacy anymore…Then again, if our Supreme Court can subvert the Constitution to say women have an inalienable right to abortion, it's no wonder other amendments will be seriously subverted!
August 27, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Matthew – the Food Cops want to talk to you about your seven trips to Dairy Queen this week…
August 27, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Seven? Ha! That means they missed a couple. Good. SO their ingenious system isn't foolproof after all.
August 27, 2010 at 9:05 pm
C'mon, President Obama would never abuse his power on this front. Who do you think you're dealing with? George W. Bush?!?!?!?!
(On a more serious note… You mean you don't have a stockpile of at least 1000 rounds and are not purchasing gold and silver?)
August 27, 2010 at 11:52 pm
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
Patriot Act anyone? Can't have it both ways.
August 28, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Thank you, Early Riser. That's exactly what I thought when it was being passed. The government has too much power in the name of "keeping us safe".
But I'm ok with that mosque near Ground Zero, so maybe I'm totally cracked in the head.
Seriously, though, do you guys really think we should be stockpiling guns and ammo? Do you really think it's going to come to that? (I'm not being sarcastic one bit here. I've resisted the idea mainly because I have young kids in the house and don't want to deal with gun cases and locked cabinets, etc. And I know nothing about guns and don't really have an inclination to learn. And we're pretty poor and can't afford expensive guns. But maybe we should figure out a way to begin collecting/stockpiling?)
August 28, 2010 at 9:35 pm
What possible purpose are those who created and passed the laws telling people this thing will have? How are they justifying this?
August 29, 2010 at 12:52 am
Lavatea – I support the patriot act AND this measure. Once again, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.
And yes, if you support the mosque at ground zero then you are proably cracked in the head. The same if you are stockpiling guns/ammo and divesting your wealth into gold and silver. This is fundie nonsense, and they say this when times are GOOD, as well as when times are BAD (just listen to Christian radio and you'll know what I'm talking about). As Catholics we are called to be a little more intelligent here.
Leah – if you are the FBI tracking someone who is planning a terrorist attack, don't you think this would be a good idea?
August 29, 2010 at 6:11 am
I don't think it's a good idea. How long do you think it will take the government from tracking suspected terrorists to tracking your movements and putting you into groups? What's to stop them from labeling Tea Partiers as terrorists and locking them up indefinitely? Does it really seem far fetched?
I don't think there's any reason to stop the mosque near Ground Zero for one reason – I don't want anyone telling Christians where we can build churches. If we let them trample the religious freedom of another group, it's just one more step to allowing them to trample ours.
August 29, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Lavatea "What's to stop them from labeling Tea Partiers as terrorists and locking them up indefinitely? Does it really seem far fetched?" Yeah. It does. When dealing with the current threat of terrorism, law enforcement is "damned if they do, and damned if they don't". If something goes wrong, they are blamed for not doing enough. And when times are stable BECAUSE OF their surveilance and detective activities PREVENTING terrorist attacks, they are blamed and criticised for hypotheticals by whiney people with too much free time on their hands. I mean, they'll be demanding us to eat our babies next! It's only logical! Give me an effing break.
As for your Ground Zero mosque comment, I guess I should point out that dispite the new age inculturation you have no doubt been subjected to, not all religions are created equal. My guess is you know next to nothing about Mohammedanism and its political and theological drivers which are incompatible with Democracy or even freedom to which we in the west are accustomed. The minute you start equating "them" with "it could happen to us too" is the very moment you have checked your brain out for the capacity to reason.
Many saints (remember them?) such as St John of Demascus warned us as Christians about siding with the Mohammedan, as it can bring us nothing good. One would have thought the lessons of the US supporting the Taliban during the 80's would have woken people up to this reality.
August 29, 2010 at 6:49 pm
ER – I have most certainly not checked my brain out.
I do not think that all religions are created equal, on the contrary, I believe that the Catholic Church is THE Church. But while I will vote my morals every time (as opposed to separating my private religious beliefs from public policy), I believe in this instance it is not a morality issue. This time it is a case of religious freedom, something this nation was founded on, and I don't like it when people scream about OUR religious freedom but won't stand up for someone else's.
I agree that much of Islam is incompatible with Democracy, but I STILL don't want their right to worship trampled on. I think our government just needs to be vigilant in legal ways (that don't threaten our actual right to privacy)regarding terrorism.
You have to look no farther than the 1930s/40s to see how quickly the government can start separating out groups and people just go along with it. And, no, I'm not suggesting we're at a Holocaust level – yet – but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that it might get to that point.
August 29, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Lavatea – there is a mosque just down the street from where the proposed mosque is to be built. No one is trampling on their rights to worship.
And yes, I'm afraid you have checked your brain out. Anyone who could possibly bring the Holocaust up in this discussion can not be taken seriously here. Such people are irrational and will use this extreme to "prove" any point (or lack thereof) that they are trying to make.
"They didn't let me bring my dog into the restaurant to sit with me! That's discrimination on par with Nazi Germany and I smell a holocaust coming soon! That Restaurant owner is worse than Hitler!"
August 29, 2010 at 7:56 pm
The fact that they have a mosque just down the street doesn't change anything. In many cities there are Catholic churches in very close proximity to each other. Should that be used as an argument to not allow us to build another one?
I do have a point, and I object to you acting as if I'm a brainless idiot simply because I don't agree with YOUR point. I'm trying to have a real discussion, and your comments about my brains and points (or lack thereof) are not helpful.
I thought I made it pretty clear that I didn't think we were at Holocaust levels. And I hardly think bringing your dog into a restaurant is analogous. But tracking a person's every movement and then classifying one based on one's whereabouts is certainly a little closer.
The whole point is that it is a slippery slope. How long it takes to slide all the way down the slope is debatable, but the more we allow, the steeper the slope becomes.
August 29, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Lavatea – let's get something straight; YOU were the one that commented that you may be "totally cracked in the head". So YOU were the one who thought bringing your mental capacities into the discussion was relevant. I was simply stating MY opinion on the subject since YOU brought it up.
My point about bringing a dog into a restaurant is absolutely relevant, since to fanatic animal lovers, perceived mistreatment of dogs is analogous to "Hitler" and "holocaust" and "Nazis". The government (i.e. city planning) CAN and DOES regulate where, when and how a religious institution may build, and there are MANY factors involved, including something as innocuous as flow of trafic and public safety. Your comparison/implication that people who don't want a mosque there REGARDLESS of their/our reasons are "like Hitler" and may bring about a future holocaust are ludicrous, ridiculous and just as insane as the person taking offense to a restaurant that doesn't allow their dog in doing the same.
Try discussing without the hyperbole of Nazi regimes and you might get a tad of credibility here.
August 29, 2010 at 9:54 pm
ER – You're right, I did initially bring it up, but I was being funny. And I took no issue with you initially commenting on my mental capacities as I took your initial response as being funny as well. But then you kept harping on it, even after I stopped referencing it.
Also, you're muddling two separate points. I'm not comparing the protests regarding the mosque to the Nazis. I was likening the original point of this post – tracking people's movements via planted GPS devices – as the first step toward classifying individuals and eventually stripping them of all freedoms.
I've gone back and re-read my posts, and the only place I see where I could possibly have been confusing regarding my two separate discussions is this paragraph from my post at 1:49: I agree that much of Islam is incompatible with Democracy, but I STILL don't want their right to worship trampled on. I think our government just needs to be vigilant in legal ways (that don't threaten our actual right to privacy)regarding terrorism.
Looking back at it, I probably should have separated the two sentences. Is that paragraph why you thought I was mixing the two? If so, I apologize. I think my other posts make it clear that I was discussing two separate issues.