I have always been suspicious of phone conversations.  I've often wonder if they are being listened in on.  I need to use a service from a company sent by wires laid by companies with the support of government, to make a phone call, I rely on them to get my message accross. 

The 4th amendment reads "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I am no legal genious, and who knows how lawyers have redefined the word searches and seizures, but in normal vocabulary listening is not a search or a seizure.  Notice the phrase, "and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."   Places get searched, not conversations, persons and things get seized, not the meanings in a sentence.  Seems to me that a guarantee of securing any phone conversations from outside ears is a stretch.  As I said I am no expert and it is likely some lawyer or judge somewhere deconstructed the terms to fit the needs of their case, and won.  So presidence would prevail and my little argument here is mute.

So, for me, I will still never trust phone conversations or the prevailing legal opinions argued on the subject.  And I still think using the 4th amendment to secure privacy on a device that uses services provided by others is a stretch.  Maybe, thank God, that is why I am not a lawyer.

Do you really think we have freedom, or just the appearance of it?  It behooves this government of the rich by the rich and for the rich to cause us to believe we are still free, when in fact we are enslaved to a culture based upon the marketing of goods and services.  A Collage professor was able to show me with some very simple math that I am paying about 55 percent of my income in taxes.  If I refuse, I am not allowed to work or live in normal society.  Or they come with guns and place me in jail.  This would not be how I define freedom.  More like paying protection to the Mob who will decide my place & status in society as long as it is below theirs and they remain in control.  The Dem’s are no less controlled by the rich then the Republican’s.  It is the common people who continue to have an ever increasing tax and energy burden placed on them.  So how do we take political power away from the rich?  Answer me that and you will get my vote.

Hi Trapper,

What I said was, that I did not think an appeal to the 4th Amendment specifically addresses the issue and that appealing to it was a stretch.  What I would like to know is what is it about a phone conversation that qualifies it to receive the same protections as one's home or one,s possessions?  If I buy the cups and the string, then it is my own private hardware and I can protect it, but a phone call is using services and hardware that I do not own or possess and for me to cry that I should have privacy on it and base it on an amendment concerning personal poroperty, is in my opinion flawed reasoning.

Whether I think the government should or should not listen in is besides the point, and for the record I do not think they should listen in.  I am just wondering what do we have to appeal to to stop it? 

• Amendment 1 guarantees the right to the privacy of beliefs
• Amendment 3 guarantees the right not to have your home invaded and taken over by soldiers.
• Amendment 4 guarantees the right to privacy of person and possessions against unreasonable searches.
• Amendment 5 guarantees the right to protect oneself from self-incrimination.  This amendment provides the protection of your personal information. 
  
• Amendment 9 arguably protects the broad array of privacy rights not clearly spelled out in the first 8 amendments.

1. Our conversations contain personal information which we have not agreed to release to the public.  They may in fact be self-incriminating (5th Amendment) for reasons beyond the fear of terrorism and by right we should be able to choose to release our personal information or choose not to.
2. When we pay our bills each month, we are in a sense "renting" space on the fiber optic network.  That space, for that time belongs to us.  My phone number is mine - not yours or anyone else's - for the time I purchase the service from the phone company.  I'm a renter (as most people are in NYC).  Just because I rent and don't own my home, doesn't mean I'm any less protected under the 3rd and 4th amendments.  In the same way, we "rent" space (per-say) on the fiber optic network.  And in the same way, our possessions (ie. our beliefs, our personal information, our words) should be protected from search and seizure on that network - unless there is probably cause.  In that case, the government is obligated to obtain a warrant.

Thanks Lisa for your answer!  It certainly gives me some more to think about.  Maybe I have overlooked some things (actually I am sure I have).  I have another question for you though.  If there were some legal residents here that were not citizens and they were speaking to their friends or associates overseas, are their phone calls protected in the same manner a citizen's would be? 

I usually respond to theological or biblical issues here and so this one is sort of out of my realm of comfort, but I do want to think rightly (not right or left but right and wrong) on this issue.  So it would be helpful for me to know what would, if anything, be considered non intrusive in the bill that was passed.

kush

• a citizen of the United States
• an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
• an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence
• a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.