Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Sen. Paul Introduces Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act of 2013

  1. #1

    Post Sen. Paul Introduces Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act of 2013

    Sen. Paul Introduces Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act of 2013

    May 23, 2013

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today introduced the Fourth Amendment Preservation and Protection Act of 2013, which would extend Fourth Amendment guarantees to electronic communications and requires specific warrants granted by judges in order to obtain this information.

    "In today's high-tech world, we must ensure that all forms of communication are protected. Yet government has eroded protecting the Fourth Amendment over the past few decades, especially when applied to electronic communications and third party providers," Sen. Paul said. "Congress has passed a variety of laws that decimate our Fourth Amendment protections. In effect, it means that Americans can only count on Fourth Amendment protections if they don't use e-mail, cell phones, the Internet, credit cards, libraries, banks, or other forms of modern finance and communications."

    "Basic constitutional rights should not be invalidated by carrying out basic, day-to-day functions in a technologically advanced world and this bill will provide much needed clarity and reassert Fourth Amendment protections for records held by third parties."

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

  4. #3
    Good move.

  5. #4
    Only got 12 votes in 2012:

    Here were some of Dianne Feinstein's arguments:

    This amendment is so broad that the police could not use cell phone data to find a missing or kidnapped child without a warrant or the consent of the missing child--impossible to get. Similarly, they could not ask the phone company to provide the home address of a terrorist, drug dealer, or other criminal without consent or warrant. They could not ask a bank if such criminals had recently deposited large sums of money. In fact, as written, this amendment would prohibit law enforcement from looking up the name, address, and phone number of a criminal suspect, witness, or any other person online unless they obtained a warrant or the consent of the criminal suspect. As you can see, the amendment is too broad.
    How do the police obtain all those information now? Subpoena or just asking the third party holders for cooperation?
    Last edited by tsai3904; 05-24-2013 at 12:33 PM.

  6. #5
    Feinstein is such an detestable psychopath. None of her reasoning holds any water as probable cause would get a warrant for the appropriate information to be given to the police in said circumstances.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-15-2014, 08:59 AM
  2. Sign the Fourth Amendment Protection Act Petition
    By compromise in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-08-2014, 07:15 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-13-2013, 01:12 AM
  4. Rand Paul Introduces 4th Amendment Protection Act
    By Matt Collins in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-01-2013, 03:26 AM
  5. Fourth Amendment Protection In Text Pager Messages
    By Bradley in DC in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-01-2007, 08:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts