Unconstitutional

Actions for Unconstitutional

Created by Amanda Celiceo on Jan 30, 2015 6:31 PM
The meta-data program, ran by the NSA is not constitutional because of the obvious problem, the violation of
our 4thamendment right. Although the 4th amendment doesnt mention anything about privacy, it is implied as a
natural right. Often when peoples privacy is violated, they feel as though their rights are violated. The
4th amendment states, The Fourth Amendment originally enforced the notion that each mans home is his
castle, secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. It protects against
arbitrary arrests, and is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety
inspections, wiretaps, and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to many other criminal law topics
and to privacy law. Collecting information on an individual who doesnt know they are being somewhat
monitored, especially without a warrant is unreasonable and clearly unconstitutional. What makes this program
even worse is the information they keep and for the amount of time. Seizing this information for 5 years after it
has been collected is unreasonable. The 4th amendment clearly states that any other forms of surveillance is
unacceptable unless there is a warrant. I understand if there is probable cause in wanting to collect information
on a person but to collect information on everyone is unreasonable and unconstitutional.
Scott Griffen
Actions for reply by Scott Griffen
February 13 at 5:41 PM
Constitutional
Yeah, sorry I'm so bad at responding to these thing...
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effectsagainst
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.
As the NSA meta-data program currently operates, they are not violating the rights granted through the 4th
amendment. With the invention of the telephone, the only reasonable way to communicate who you were trying
to reach was through publically announcing who you were trying to reach. This information was given to the
switch operators, who then connected you. The information was recorded and stored so the phone company
could bill you later.
This idea of record keeping has been around since the invention of the telephone and does not infringe on any
rights because you knowingly accept that this information is forfeit through the use of phones.
On top of that, the 4th amendment only pertains to your personal affects, not a third party's information about
you. No where is "your friend's documents on you" listed as protected items. The phone company keeps these
records, and is allowed too by your permission when you sign their contracts, is not bound to secrecy (unless
stated in their contracts).
Amanda Celiceo
Actions for reply by Amanda Celiceo
February 14 at 12:03 AM

Scott,
I understand what you are expressing, however, you have to remember that this is a different time so privacy
automatically and morally has more of an importance and complex meaning behind it. Your brief story of the
way calls were transmitted before is true, but the type of recording you mentioned is different and way more
complex to the type of recording and collecting the NSA is doing. This information the NSA is collecting now is
more private information and not as public as it would have been before. These days, our lives and who we call
are more private because of how big the world is, and who you can contact in the matter of seconds. So just as
the times have changed, our rights "protected" under the constitution should be evolving as well. I see that you
mentioned "unless stated in their contracts", okay so to those that do have that stated in their contracts, isnt it
unconstitutional to surveillance those protected under the contract of the third party? I would think yes, however,
information is still collected.