California Govenor doesn't give a shit about the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution

Governor Brown signed one law, and vetoed another which together gut our 4th amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. It is a pathetic capitulation to corporations in one case and to the police in another. Personally, I am disgusted by both actions. The veto, cancelling out the law enacted by the people's representatives, he endorses the warrantless search of people's cell phones when arrested. The legislature makes the laws and the courts enforce them. The California legislature passed a law protecting our right not to have our phones searched without a warrant and the Governor vetoed it. He said some lame shit about the Courts being better to decide... but they decide based on the California law - so by blocking the law that would protect us, he is substituting his own view for that of the legislature and took a position against freedom. He did it because he wants support of law enforcement and the other because of RIAA and MPAA lobbyist and money he gets. He just shit on the US Constitution and it makes me sick. There were hundreds of bills signed into law and I got issues with more of them, but these two just piss me off as being absurd on their face.

____________________

Warrantless Cell Phone Searches Return to California

Privacy took another kick to the face when California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed legislation that would require the police to obtain a warrant to search a mobile phone upon arrest of a suspect.

This reverses a law passed by the state assembly just a few weeks ago. The state assembly passed the law in response to a California Supreme Court ruling in January that made it legal for officers to go poking around your phone after an arrest.

more

________

RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants

One of my favorite historical stories that really demonstrates how a "legacy" industry can take regulatory capture to extreme lengths to protect their monopoly rights is the story of the French button-makers guild in 1666, as relayed by famed economic historian Robert Heilbroner:

The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: 'If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild.' One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated.

Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the button makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the cloth-button makers. But the wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people's homes and wardrobes and fine and even arrest them on the streets if they are seen wearing these subversive goods." ​

It's not hard to see the RIAA or the MPAA in that description of the old guilds, and it seems like they're trying to take the comparison even further. As we covered back in May, the RIAA has been pushing really, really hard for California to pass a law that would allow for warrantless searches of private property, specifically of anyone involved in reproducing CDs or DVDs for "commercial" purposes. The RIAA was so cavalier about this, that a spokesperson even said: "I don't think the scope of the search is something a regulator needs to be worried about." In other words, no government oversight. Just go ahead and search private businesses.

more

_______________


The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants

- Thomas Jefferson

 

Get friends and start a vigil.

 

My best friend

 

What stands out from reading this is the civil liberties taken away from Iraqi's / Afghans were much worse than the right to go through a phone but I didn't see anyone standing up for them. Not that I think you don't have an argument but perspectives seem pretty fucked up.

 

Yes Bushranger , security conditions in warzones are EXACTLY the same as those in a place that has never seen conflicts in the past century . Special person much ?

 

Isn't that the point? There's a war going on and America's enemies are mostly coming from within. If they're going to continue making enemies, as they are daily, then the US warlords need special rights to help them win, if only for a limited time. If you're for the wars then you should be for the extra-stuff they're doing to protect you from attack. Not that i'm agreeing it's the right way forward, but in for a penny, in for a pound as they say.

 

The Iraqis need to fight for their rights. Or do you long for the days of Saddam, when the Iraqis were so free?

You are the kind of fool who would weigh down all those who are successful in life, so that they are not ahead of those who are less successful. Maybe weights on the ankles of ballerinas?

 

I can see why you have that as your signature, one day you might actually get it. You certainly need it.

 

With all due respect Bushranger, Iraqis and Afghans didn't have much of civil rights even before the invasion.

 

I don't want to turn this thread into an Iraq debate so will argue that elsewhere, however my point is a 'phone-search' is only a tiny step considering the many rights others have lost to the people they're fighting, and the many other rights even Americans have had to give up because of stupid warlords working in their name. If you support the need for war then you should support the need for loss of certain privelidges as imo, it goes hand-in-hand. A 2-way street.

And, can you see how that may benefit US law enforcers?

To the repper; if you don't want debate then keep going. Let's make this place even more boring by scaring people into submission eh? Let's all chant the same mantra and not discuss alternative POVs, idiot!

FTR: I'm against the extra powers but I'm also against the wars.

 

It is not hard to be against the erosion of my freedom and also for Iraqis to have theirs. That is not what you do here. You conflate the two as though my having freedom here prevents the Iraqis from having theirs. This issue has nothing to do with war in Iraq, but I see that is beyond your grasp.

Where is your condemnation of all the countries and leaders who are oppressing their citizens. Nowhere, you don't. Instead you lamely waste your breath railing against the US who, in any fair minded view, has given and protected the freedoms of people all over the world and continues to so in spite of people like you who would rather see people oppressed then anyone dare try to make the world better.

You are the kind of person who will complain when we try to sanction North Korea or Syria, but never bitch how they have no rights and are actually being killed by their leaders. People like you who only throw stones and never take a stand against true evil, well, your opinion is worthless to me.

What could someone possibly post to "scare" you from stating your opinion? Seems absurd unless the notion of getting a red rep is enough to make you unwilling to stand up for what you believe. I can't remember the last time I ever even read any rep to me. I can hardly think of anything as insignificant to complain about.

 

If you said anything true I might debate you but instead your post is full of dribble. I FULLY support the US as stated many times in previous posts. I don't support Republican warfare. You can't keep making stupid conclusions from your concocted stories. You don't make sense.

 

Please tell me what California law has to do with Afghanistan or Iraq again, I must have missed the point.


Calling it a "Republican war" ignores the reality that both parties in the US supported, and continue to support the war. When they don't, it will end. I am pretty sure the Democrat President is still Commander and Chief and could order the military home if he wanted. Not liking the war is one thing, but trying to blame it on one political party says nothing about the war, but lots about your personal bias.

 

The point is you are in a war. The people who put you in that war have now decided you too have to give up some freedoms in order to help them win it, if of course that's what you want to do. Do you support the war? Do you understand that many people WITHIN the USA are plotting against it? Do you see the benefits of them accessing suspicious people's details?

Don't say they'll be doing it to everyone because that would be bullshit. It will be done when they feel it is necessary, albeit sometimes it will be gamed.

 

No point in arguing with Bushranger. He is a self described "nutter".

I've reached of point of helplessness with California. We are a bit like Venezuela, sitting on vast wealth, but having crossed the tipping point for an election to make a difference to save he middle class. Its only a matter of time before they repeal Prop 13. Even recalling Brown would not yield a favorable outcome. Gavin Newsome would be the likely next governor. Ranked 49th out of 50 for our public education, and the second worst state in the union for unemployment in the middle of the greatest financial crisis since the great depression, we put Moonbeam into office knowing full well what type of crap he would run through the legislature.

It has to get worse for everyone before it gets better. More businesses will invariably leave the state. More businesses like Amazon will invariably sue the state. When basic social services break down, MAYBE, MAYBE we will see a change, but im not optimistic.

 

It has nothing to do with the war. It has to do with copying DVDs of Hollywood movies.

The cell phone thing also has nothing to do with the war, it is an extension of a long held law, which I do not have a problem with. Police have always been able to search people incident to an arrest. The idea has always been that they have a right to protect themselves in case a person has a knife or other weapon. The idea that the should also be able to search a cell phone is a nonsensical extension of that long held rule.

These laws, if you bothered to read anything, have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism or war. Again, your fixation on that issue does not make it related to these limited state law issues. These laws have nothing to do with giving up freedom to fight a war. You would have more credibility if you did not keep trying to make everything somehow about your hatred of a war.

They also outlawed the use of tanning beds by minors in California. I guess if I had posted that one, you would again say something about how we have to make sacrifices for the war effort. If you have a point about your opposition to a war, you are certainly not helping your cause by trying to tie it to unrelated issues. They have proposed laws to outlaw fitted bed sheets in hotels too - care to tell me how that is related to the war? Come on man, you are just being a dolt trying to make everything about the war. When you make absurd arguments like these, people will ignore you if you actually had a point to make about the war.

He is something alright.

Brown is fool, but Meg Whitman trying to buy the office was not a much better alternative.

The state controller came out today and said revenues were 700 million less than they had planned. Well no shit, when they did their stupid Amazon tax (claiming it would raise 200 million) and Amazon fired affiliates like me, so now California didn't get that extra money and lost the income tax I would have paid on the money I was making from Amazon and 10,000 other affiliates. Bunch of fucking morons running this state. Now, of course, months later they reverse it, but the damage has been done.

 

Whitman was fairly useless, agreed, but to put her in the same class as Brown is ridiculous. The real problem now is that there is not even a single recognized name that would be much better, but the change still needs to be made.

I didn't realize they had reversed it, but it reconfirms what I suspected in the first place. A ballot initiative passed requiring a balanced budget for the state legislators to receive their pay, while at the same time requiring only a majority vote to pass the budget. The legislators went without pay for several weeks while, even with only a simple majority, they couldnt get a balanced budget passed without gimics that the Democratic State Controller couldn't accept. They went back to work, passed the Amazon tax, and were once again able to receive their paychecks.

The tax was never really meant to generate the revenue they claimed it might. It was meant to bypass a law keeping our legislators from being paid if they couldn't pass a balanced budget. Once the budget was passed, they were more than happy to do whatever they wanted, balanced budget be damned.

 

From a Google search I can't see anyone who says this is about Hollywood movies so my inference of war being their original reason for a law such as this stands as valid as yours. It seems they're using it to catch druggies and criminals they can't catch in other ways. Personally I don't think it's needed but can't see how you can't support it if you want to win a war.

Finding the actual law you're talking about is a little tricky but this may be it?

Obamanation: I'll second that, I am a nutter, here to make you think more. I think you're a nutter too, so I do feel I belong here.

 

Perhaps everyone is a "nutter". Maybe it would be better to say that I can put together a coherent argument based on facts, where as you argue from emotion and assumption, based on very dubious sources of information.

 

I posted a link to a story, but how can you not see that a bill supported by the Movie and Recording lobbys is about movies and recordings?

The DVD/CD law signed was SB 550

Here is the link I posted with the OP:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...private-property-with-no-warrants.shtml#c1181

http://techfreedom.org/blog/2011/10...tory-searches-arent-right-way-stop-dvd-piracy

Here is the state's own analysis that it is probably unconstitutional:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0501-0550/sb_550_cfa_20110816_164658_asm_comm.html

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...dment-passe-pushes-warrantless-searches.shtml

I am at a loss how you keep insisting that a law removing the requirement for probable cause or a search warrant to search DVD and CD copying businesses is about Afganistan or Iraq. You seem to see things that just are not there.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2011/10/recording-music-subpoena-california-piracy.html