The police has to have evidence, before they can search or seize anyone or anything. If there is a search or seizure that is not lawful then the evidence will not be used at court.
This article relates to the Fourth Amendment; unreasonable search and seizure. The question is; does GPS and DNA violate our Fourth Amendment if utilized without our knowledge?
Learn when the government can invade your privacy to hunt for evidence of a crime. What your rights are when it comes to being searched with or without a warrant
A look at the public's view on search and seizure and what our laws protect us from. This article also compares the European approach and defines clearly the Fourth Amendment.
At the border, online, at the doctor's office, you're no longer protected from unreasonable search and seizures. For the protection of the rest of the country unwarranted searches are becoming a part of everyday life because no ones covered in the fine print.
Officials are ignoring the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and seizures in the act of DUI checkpoints. Most people over the age of 21 that are pulled over and blow a 0.07 or below think they're safe, but really the are not.
This article is written by a Congressman, Bob Goodlatte. He is describing his stance on personal freedoms and bullet points actions he has taken. The actions include surveillance, privacy, the right to bear arms, and healthcare to name a few.
One congressman's view on what personal freedoms are. Bob Goodlatte plainly states his opinions on what he thinks personal freedoms are, where they come from, and what we must do to acknowledge these freedoms
The Purpose of the United States government is to protect the God-given rights of the people, from our First Amendment rights to free speech and religious freedom, to our Second Amendment right to bear arms, to our rights to hold private property and be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Congressman, Bob Goodlatte describes his views on personal freedoms and citizen's rights.
This site is supporting personal freedom from the view point of Congressman Bob Goodlatte. In this site, there are several acts supported specifically.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
This statement has an Orwellian tone to it to indicate the tone of the article to the reader as cautious, paranoid even, and fearful
as most people are law-abiding citizens, most ostensibly will not be targeted for surveillance and it will not impact their lives,
safer through the elimination of criminals.
the government already has the ability to track a known target's movements to a reasonable degree, and has easy access to information such as one's purchasing habits, online activities, phone conversations, and mail.
if the individual has been treated unfairly and procedures violated, are there appropriate means of redress? Are there means for discovering violations and penalties to encourage responsible surveillant behavior
allowing surreptitious surveillance of one form, even limited in scope and for a particular contingency, encourages government to expand such surveillance programs in the future
the danger of a "slippery slope" scenario cannot be dismissed as paranoia
British police are now pushing for the DNA collection of children who "exhibit behavior indicating they may become criminals in later life"
This opens a door for discriminatory profiling from government agencies and educators who report the behavior
M.I.T. professor Gary Marx, who argued that before implementing surveillance we should evaluate the proposed methods by asking a number of questions, which we enumerate below:
does the technique cross a personal boundary without permission (
are individuals aware that personal information is being collected, who seeks it and why?
The issue seems to be that consumers using the technology our government tracks aren't aware of what they are consenting to due to the long and overly-articulated terms and conditions presented to them in a purposefully confusing manner in order to gain access to their data
human review of machine generated results
With the expansion of surveillance, such abuses could become more numerous and more egregious as the amount of personal data collected increases.
security of the data be adequately protected?
are the goals of the data collection legitimate?
In general, we feel that surveillance can be ethical, but that there have to exist reasonable, publicly accessible records and accountability for those approving and performing the surveillance in question.
The website offers links to various sources of information on the collection and distribution of surveilled data from government agencies in an attempt to inform its readers and covers the paranoia tinted tone of those who find government surveillance in todays society to be too close to "Big Brother" methods and presents an argument for their point of view through the methods of MIT professor Gary Marx. The argument is presented in a series of questions on the ethical stance of what the government surveils, what the surveillance consists of as well as the consequences of any action taken as a result of surveillance and the reality that American citizens never consented to the constant surveillance of their personal lives. The position of inclination towards complacency is concisely summed with a strong amount of surveillance being presented by the double edged statement of "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear.".