Privacy ain't a thing...is it?

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Morris, just shut up already. You're like that kid in class who's always defending the teacher. Stop showing your obsession with the government for a minute!

You go on and on about something that is not factual at all. You use phrases such as "that's unlikely" or "it possibly is..."

The fact that it's legal hardly means that the government is doing it.

Oh no...they only spent a long long while making it legal just so that they could put it aside.

If the government has solid leads on people, checking library records is simply one of the last steps.

Considering how secretive those idiotic government agencies are, how do you know what the first and last steps are? Damn..they won't let a single thing out and you're already speculating on what they do.

Do you honestly believe the Feds waste their time reading random people's library records? That would be an unimaginable waste of manpower and resources. Come on, use logic.

Some guy started an organization showing how much the government wasted tax payer's money, and you're saying something like "would the govt really waste our money?" They'll do whatever they want to do because they don't realize that taking our money actually affects us.

Anyhow, can you give us something you know from personal experience or inside information as opposed to what you think could be going on?

Come on, use logic.

I don't mean to go into the world of philosophy, but you mean to say "use common sense." Logic is something else, and the average person does not know how to use it properly. (what a miracle...my class actually taught me something)

Again, the use of library records would be one of the least admissible pieces of evidence possible in a court.

Your unbelievable amount of knowledge in the legal system tells you this? Each case is different from another and what's admissible in one is not admissible in the other. As long as a the evidence was seized legaly (and they now have the legal right) and its relevant, its admissible. For example, the govt can argue that such and such was reading a book about blowing up buildings..that would be relevant.

So, I don't see why you say it would be unlikely for it to be used in court.

 

[Morris]

Oh no...they only spent a long long while making it legal just so that they could put it aside.

Actually, it only took about 2 weeks to draft the entire PATRIOT Act. The addition of library record searches didn't overturn or go against some major legislation in the past.

Considering how secretive those idiotic government agencies are, how do you know what the first and last steps are? Damn..they won't let a single thing out and you're already speculating on what they do.

It's not speculation to know that the CIA or FBI don't start investigations by looking at library records. It's common sense.

Some guy started an organization showing how much the government wasted tax payer's money, and you're saying something like "would the govt really waste our money?" They'll do whatever they want to do because they don't realize that taking our money actually affects us.

I didn't say it was a waste of money. Of course the government does too much of that. I said it was a waste of resources, as in a waste of the agencies' manpower and abilities.

I don't mean to go into the world of philosophy, but you mean to say "use common sense." Logic is something else, and the average person does not know how to use it properly. (what a miracle...my class actually taught me something)

I said "Come on, use logic" in direct response to someone who had said the same thing to me. In fact, my responses that you just quoted weren't even in made reference to any of your posts. Thanks for your lecture though.

Your unbelievable amount of knowledge in the legal system tells you this? Each case is different from another and what's admissible in one is not admissible in the other.

I've taken law courses. But common sense could tell you what type of evidence makes the strongest case and what type of evidence is negligible.

As long as a the evidence was seized legaly (and they now have the legal right) and its relevant, its admissible. For example, the govt can argue that such and such was reading a book about blowing up buildings..that would be relevant.

Yeah, I didn't word that really well. The evidence would be as admissible as anything else, but it would be the least useful in pressing a case.

The example you gave is about the ONLY example in which checking library records and using them would be worthwhile. And that would only be used to strengthen the case in conjunction with other evidence.

If a bomb goes off in New York City tomorrow, the Feds' first move would not be to check everyone's library records. And you don't need to know what the Feds are doing to know that.