talltex wrote:Don't act obtuse...her comment was about not allowing a search of her home without a warrant...and you know full well that's what my 4th Amendment comment referenced. Regardless of where a "TIP" comes from, there's no right to search without a warrant.EEllis wrote:What not to have people watching how you use their stuff? It was the IT department checking out a turned in laptop that got nervous when there were bomb making searches. Big shock they mentioned it to the cops. It makes no sense to believe that would be a constitutional violation. If fact that anyone even tried to make such an argument is amazing. I'm not feeding into the absurdity I'm done with this crap.talltex wrote:EEllis wrote:Unless you were googling it from a place that just fired you I don't think you have to worry. Oh and congrats on spreading the parranoia to the next generation. JKIt's not a question of PARANOIA, EEllis....it's your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT under the 4th Amendment.
Here's where some of those "tips" come from: http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-u-direc ... 43729.html
More evidence that they aren't just reading metadata, since without reading the content, they wouldn't know there was anything to investigate.A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.
Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.
The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses.