Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

4th Amendment and private companies

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:33 AM
Original message
4th Amendment and private companies
I've heard the argument that the 4th Amendment only protects us from government intrusion and not private companies.
This doesn't sound correct.

I am too tired this morning to think clearly about this.
Can someone help me out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. That is correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's the government's acts that are the problem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. so how are we protected from say...
...our phone records being given or sold, to other companies?

According to FCC Law don't they need our permission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
electropop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. In the current NSA scandals, the 4th Amendment certainly applies.
In cases where companies are selling our info to each other for commercial purposes, there are statues and regulations which apply, though I am not expert enough to quote them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
4. It they were under government contract to do this...
then I assume it falls under jurisdiction. I don't know if there's any precedent on that one, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. It doesn't apply to private entities only government acts
But that's about the phone company getting the information from you voluntarily to set up your account.

Supposedly the phone company could give your information to others based on your agreement and few of us read the fine print in the contracts we make. It could be in there that we've agreed. They would usually do it for moneymaking purposes, though. But to make things easier for themselves, they might have it in the contract that you agree they can give it to the government without fighting (which would cost them money).

They should fight the government on their own behalf, as if they valued their freedom to do business, as a company. Imagine your own business volunteering its records to the government and you can imagine how in bed these companies must be with government officials.

The government has no right to their records without a warrant or some procedure under law, that would apply to a specific case, not some general provision of data for undefined general purposes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. The data (phone records) could be seen as belonging to the
phone companies. Selling the info to the government could be a way around the 4th. Privatization could help insulate the government from having to comply with constitutional safe-guards.

How many of those private security cams are being rented by the government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. If the government does a supoena, they wouldn't have to pay
for them, would they? Maybe they do, but it would seem to undermine the justice system. If you are supoenaed to court, for example, you get travel costs, but not paid for your time testifying.

But even then, a specific case is involved.

IMO the government doesn't have the authority to pay anyone for anything it can't used to fulfill a lawful purpose. The legal niceties of this probably have to be understood. Some obscure statute somewhere might authorize this, in a technical way.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mickeymystro Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
8. 4th Amendment Does Not Apply to Non-Governmental Entities
People frequently make the mistake of believing that the 4th Amendment protects US citizens from any kind of intrusion by both government entities and private companies. This is incorrect. For example, while the emails you compose at work are protected from government snooping, your employer has the right screen your emails at any time and make termination decisions based on such emails if appropriate.

By the way, this also applies to the 1st Amendment right to free speech. For example, while you would be free, if you were so inclined, to scream racist rhetoric into the air from a street corner for all passersby to hear without the fear of government persecution, this same behavior could result in your termination from your place of employment, even if this act did not take place at your place of employment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Hi mickeymystro!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turn CO Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. The hubby said he had joined and received a warm welcome!


So I said, well it must have been a "Welcome to DU" from newyawker99 -- and he's like, "How did you know that?!!"

Thanks for your tireless work in welcoming the newbies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sipnsail Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
9. Here is the 4th amendment

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 don't see anywhere in the 4th amendment says that "if you are a private company you can ignore this amendment".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Asgaya Dihi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Different relationship
With the Government they are restricted by the fourth, when an individual enters without a warrant or whatever it's breaking and entering. Still illegal, but for a different reason.

In the case of information given to business, such as medical records, billing info, or whatever else, then they aren't restricted in any way by the fourth and it comes down to a set of privacy laws instead. Doesn't mean they aren't in some way restricted, just not by the fourth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mickeymystro Donating Member (27 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. 4th Amendment, Business and Stupid People
You are correct - the 4th Amendment does not state that companies can ignore this amendment. But the Constitution was composed in such a way that it protects citizens from tyrannical governments - not tyrannical businesses. It is up to civil and administrative laws to govern the conduct of businesses.

I hate to use this example, but if someone were inclined to send racist hate mail from their company computer, this person would not have to worry that the Feds would pull him from his cubical and burn him at the stake. However, most companies have policies against using company property for personal use, and on these grounds alone, could terminate such an employee. And they frequently do.

And it makes sense. How could a manager who had openly racist views, be trusted to handle the hiring and firing of minorities for example? Or how could an employee who wastes his time viewing pornographic material on company computers be trusted not to offend other female employees or trigger costly harassment lawsuits? Companies have a responsibility and duty to protect the interests of their customers and their stockholders by ridding themselves of people who violate acceptable norms of conduct and behavior in the workplace place.

In other words, governments are required by the Constitution to tolerate stupid people, but companies are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 24th 2014, 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC