Internet issues and The US Bill of Rights

Matt Holck

Forth Amendment : Protection from unreasonable search and seizure ...
unreasonable . That's a little weak
reasonable is determined by the government
and the paperwork to challenge will tax resources.

Mater of fact,
I've had files compromised isn't the government supposed to protect me?


First Amendment: ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble ...

RedPlanet

Slightly crytpic post there.
But it's funny those Bill of Rights and Amendments of the Constitution.
We hear so much about the 2nd Amendment from the press and also from particular quarters, but when it comes to the 1st and 4th Amendments?
-nada-.
I can't figure it out.

Matt Holck

well,
the press is the right to be heard

Overheal

Im not sure what you're getting at, regarding the First.

As for the Fourth, its not your data, necessarily. Its the data of whatever server you placed it on, subject to that Host's own T&C. On Digiweb for example, this post is not my property: it is Boards.ie's, and more to the point, Digiweb's, subject to whatever agreement it has with Boards.ie ltd.

Furthermore on that example, its an Irish Server, wherein US Constitutional Rights don't even apply.

Quite frankly its hard to apply much of any of the Constitution to the Internet. Theres some movement or another in DC that has been lobbying an Internet Bill of Rights for somet time now.

Manic Moran

RedPlanet wrote: »

Slightly crytpic post there.
But it's funny those Bill of Rights and Amendments of the Constitution.
We hear so much about the 2nd Amendment from the press and also from particular quarters, but when it comes to the 1st and 4th Amendments?
-nada-.
I can't figure it out.

The second is justifiably getting a lot of press because the courts are breaking new ground. There is quite a bit of jurisprudence on the issues of the 1st and 4th, the courts have had Supreme Court precedence on them for over a century and cases on the matter have become routine, but so far in 200 years only once has SCOTUS actually made any effort at ruling on what the 2nd means, that was last year, and at that still a narrow ruling but one which started an avalanche of cases now working their way up the system. From the academic and legal history standpoints, this is a very big deal, and today's Supreme Court has much more control over the future application of the 2nd Amendment than any other amendment except the 3rd, which is unlikely to be tested any time soon.

NTM

Matt Holck

the compromised files our on my computer

I doubt that the 3rd amendment
(protection from having you're property being used to quarter soldier)
or the Second Amendment (the right to bare arms)
have ever been applied to non-US World Citizens

Matt Holck

As far the right to assemble,

hacking(browser control) and administration should not be allowed to dissolve groups

yes. I know that's cryptic
but this is a half thought open for debate

SteveS

Matt Holck wrote: »

Mater of fact,
I've had files compromised isn't the government supposed to protect me?

No. The gov't is not Constitutionally obligated to protect you from unreasonable search and seizures. If some gov't entity engaged in some kind of S & S, you may have some remedy, but it is pretty limited.

Overheal

Matt Holck wrote: »

As far the right to assemble,

hacking(browser control) and administration should not be allowed to dissolve groups

yes. I know that's cryptic
but this is a half thought open for debate

not really. websites are private property. it would be like assembling in the shoe department at target: the manager can still have you gtfo.