That is according to the 4th Amendment of our Constitution.
So that's good, right?
Yes, except for the fact that the Phone Company is not required to keep the information for any particular length of time. So, if there is a Jihadist out there, planning to, say, detonate a nuke in New York City, and the government gets a warrant, the answer from the phone company might come back, "Sorry, we threw that out yesterday."
5 comments:
"Big Brother" provisions cut both ways. The double-edged sword.
How many wannabe jihadists have been thwarted via the surveillance system that just expired?
Won't make an iota of difference. The surveillance will just go dark like before.
I am against warrantless surveillance. I believe the applicant/agency should present proof and evidence of need, in every single individual case. We have the right to the privacy of our papers, and that should extend to our digital files and phone conversations.
If Grandma is busy growing turnips in her garden and turning out apple pies, she should remain free of invasion of privacy.
Perhaps I am wrong?
The Last English Prince
I agree with you.
This is an interesting subject for debate, however, because people on our side have a wide range of different opinions.
Post a Comment