Ammo For Sale

« « OMG! PEOPLE CAN EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS | Home | Gunowners against illegal mayors » »

Doesn’t the fourth amendment say something about “unreasonable”

A bill in the senate has been re-written so the feds can read your emails without a warrant. Yup, they don’t even need a warrant to look at your funny cat pictures.

7 Responses to “Doesn’t the fourth amendment say something about “unreasonable””

  1. brewerbob Says:

    Confused. Slashdot reported close to 5 pm est that Leahy dropped the bill.

  2. Jay G. Says:

    They told me this would happen if I voted for Romney…

  3. John Smith. Says:


  4. Jake Says:

    Looks like he’s dropped it.

    For now…

  5. bob r Says:

    From the linked article: “An aide to the Senate Judiciary committee told CNET that because discussions with interested parties are ongoing, it would be premature to comment on the legislation.”

    It would seem that their employers would be interested parties. Just one more data point as to what they think of “us”.

  6. Sigivald Says:

    The unsurprising but amusing thing is that when I saw the panic about this going around on Facebook… somehow, not one of the complains mentioned Sen. Leahy by name, or his Party Affiliation.

    From which we could thus accurately infer – correctly – that he’s a Democrat.

    It never stops being amusing to apply that test and watch it work.

    Every. Single. Time.

  7. Rwolf Says:

    Senate bill Rewritten So Cops / Feds Can Read Your Email Without Warrants.

    After Sen. Patrick Leahy’s warrant-less Internet Access bill is passed, Americans should expect a spike in arrests and property forfeitures by the feds and local police.

    Most Americans have not considered if Sen. Leahy’s Internet Access bill is passed, the Feds and Cops can use warrant-less searches of their sent and received emails to charge Citizens with crime. Until now in America, (no warrant searches) of email was something that happened in oppressive regimes like Iran. It is problematic see (COINTELPRO History) that U.S. Government, FBI and federal agencies without probable cause or warrants, will search the email, social media sites, private docs and other communications of activists; Americans and corporations that politically disagree with U.S. Government—in hopes of finding evidence of wrongdoing.

    After Sen. Leahy’s Internet Access bill is passed, imagine getting an email that erroneously mentions you or your business as a participant in a crime or conspiracy. U.S. Police and federal agencies can take out of context any innocent—hastily written email, fax or phone call record to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, fines and or civil asset forfeiture of their property. There are more than 400 laws/violations that can subject property to Government asset forfeiture that require only a civil preponderance of evidence, little more than hearsay.

    Sen. Patrick Leahy’s has reworked his privacy bill H.R. 2471 touted to protect Americans’ e-mail privacy (into a warrant-less Internet access bill) that will allow the FBI, police and more than 22 federal agencies without probable cause to access your private email and other Internet communications using only a subpoena. Alleged evidence seized without warrants may be used against defendants in U.S. Civil, Criminal and Administrative prosecutions; under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization ACT and Patriot Act. Federal agencies and the FBI can (without warrants) use information gleaned from reading emails to blackmail Americans into becoming government informants.

    After Sen. Patrick Leahy’s warrant-less Internet Access bill is passed, Americans should expect a spike in arrests and property forfeitures by the feds and local police. Many Police departments are now in a budget crisis. Faced with having to layoff police officers, police increasingly look to civil asset forfeiture of Citizens’ property to pay their salaries and operating costs. This is a conflict of interests.

    The passed “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” (effectively eliminated) the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) government or a police agency allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. Should the Senate pass Patrick Leahy’s (no warrant) government Internet Access bill, police will relentlessly sift through business and Citizens’ (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications to discover crimes and civil violations.

    Annually U.S. Government seizes billions in assets without filing criminal charges. Increasingly local police turn their criminal investigations over to Federal Agencies to receive an 80% rebate of forfeited assets. Federal Government is not required to charge someone with a crime to forfeit property.

    A vote on Sen. Patrick Leahy’s warrant-less access bill is scheduled before November 30, 2012.

    Can Canadians Hold Out Against Their Government’s Recent Forceful Efforts to Wiretap Their Lives?

    Is it coincidence it was recently reported the Canadian Government intends to resurrect (Commons Bill C-30) that Canadians earlier this year rejected? Canadians discovered that (Commons Bill C-30) touted to protect children on the Internet—would also give any Canadian police officer—without a warrant—the power to request Internet service providers turn over customers’ information (see section 17 of C-30); allow Canadian police to seek into Canadians’ private computers. C-30 was strongly opposed by Canadians in April 2012. Canadians further discovered Canada had signed with the United States an array of (Asset Forfeiture Sharing Agreements) for Canada to share Canadian and Americans’ assets civilly or criminally confiscated using Asset Forfeiture laws that result from U.S. and Canada sharing information gleaned from electronic surveillance of Canadian/American Citizens’ communications, e.g., emails, faxes, Internet actively, phone records.

    You may read more about Sen. Patrick Leahy’s reworked privacy bill H.R. 2471 at CNET: