Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Senate Votes on Fourth Amendment Protection Act
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BallisticBiker" data-source="post: 2033881" data-attributes="member: 7914"><p>Dec 27, 2012</p><p></p><p>WASHINGTON, D.C. - This evening, the U.S. Senate voted on amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, H.R.5949, including one introduced by Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee (R-Utah). The amendment, known as the Fourth Amendment Protection Act extends Fourth Amendment guarantees to electronic communications and requires specific warrants granted through FISA courts in order to obtain this information.</p><p>Prior to the vote, Sen. Paul spoke on the floor, urging his colleagues to support his amendment. Below is a transcript and video of his remarks.</p><p>The amendment failed, 79-12.</p><p></p><p></p><p>TRANSCRIPT:</p><p></p><p>The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people should be secure in their persons, houses and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures.</p><p>Somewhere along the way, though, we became lazy and haphazard in our vigilance. We allowed Congress and the courts to diminish our Fourth Amendment protection, particularly when our papers were held by third parties.</p><p>I think most Americans would be shocked to know that the Fourth Amendment does not protect your records if they're banking, Internet or Visa records. A warrant is required to read your snail mail and to tap your phone, but no warrant is required to look at your e-mail, text or your Internet searches. They can be read without a warrant. Why is a phone call more deserving of privacy protection than an e-mail?</p><p>This amendment would restore the Fourth Amendment protections to third-party records, and I recommend a yes vote.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=670" target="_blank">http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=670</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BallisticBiker, post: 2033881, member: 7914"] Dec 27, 2012 WASHINGTON, D.C. - This evening, the U.S. Senate voted on amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, H.R.5949, including one introduced by Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee (R-Utah). The amendment, known as the Fourth Amendment Protection Act extends Fourth Amendment guarantees to electronic communications and requires specific warrants granted through FISA courts in order to obtain this information. Prior to the vote, Sen. Paul spoke on the floor, urging his colleagues to support his amendment. Below is a transcript and video of his remarks. The amendment failed, 79-12. TRANSCRIPT: The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people should be secure in their persons, houses and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures. Somewhere along the way, though, we became lazy and haphazard in our vigilance. We allowed Congress and the courts to diminish our Fourth Amendment protection, particularly when our papers were held by third parties. I think most Americans would be shocked to know that the Fourth Amendment does not protect your records if they're banking, Internet or Visa records. A warrant is required to read your snail mail and to tap your phone, but no warrant is required to look at your e-mail, text or your Internet searches. They can be read without a warrant. Why is a phone call more deserving of privacy protection than an e-mail? This amendment would restore the Fourth Amendment protections to third-party records, and I recommend a yes vote. [URL="http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=670"]http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=670[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Senate Votes on Fourth Amendment Protection Act
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
