Skip to main content

Rand Paul Gets a Victory for all of us

 
Today, in a story even the Huffington Post could not ignore, Rand Paul’s filibuster, which ended days ago, continued to pay dividends, not only to the rising star of the Republican Party’s campaign for the presidency of the United States, but also in his attempt to end the government’s collection of millions of American’s phone records without a warrant.

The PATRIOT Act, signed into law by George Bush after the tragic 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, has to be renewed by midnight on the night of Sunday, the 31st of this month, or the powers granted to the American Intelligence community, specifically, those granted under section 215, which the NSA and others interpret as allowing them to collect millions of American’s phone records without a warrant, will end.
That was what Rand Paul, whose father Ron Paul was one of the few Republicans in the House of Representatives not to vote for the PATRIOT Act on its first passing, took to the floor to filibuster against. Yesterday, as the clock ticked down, the Senate was unable to pass a continuing measure. The Senate departs now for recess for the week, and the House is already gone. They won’t be back until Sunday, when they will have only a few hours remaining to pass a bill most agree they won’t be able to. If that continuing resolution fails, the articles granting the intelligence services such as the NSA power to collect our phone records will end, and the long saga which began with Edward Snowden, will end in at least one victory, for we, the people.
There are many, including Marco Rubio, the Jr. Senator from Florida who is also running for president, and a friend of Rand Paul’s, who argue that America needs to be more concerned with its security than about how legitimate it is for the government to collect the phone records.
But that is not the case. The Constitution clearly states in the fourth amendment that:
“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.”
Under Section 2015, no warrant is needed, and the "things to be seized" are not "particularly" described. In other words, a simple reading would insinuate that Section 215 is unconstitutional.
A nation is nothing if not built on the rule of law. In the mad dash to find security after 9/11, this act, and possibly others, went too far. It has taken far too long to rectify, but at last, it looks as if Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is going to die a peaceful death, at home in its bed. RIP.
This is only the beginning, even the Whistleblower Edward Snowden, the man who told us all about this in the first place admits there is much more to do. But it does feel like the tides are shifting, and maybe, just maybe, this could be the beginning of a time when Americans right to privacy, real privacy, is finally secured.

Andrew C. Abbott

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Create Your Own Social Networking Site

Create Your Own Social Networking Site JCOW: Ethical Hacking Top 10 reasons to choose Jcow:- 1. Handle more traffic - Clean codes and Dynamic caching can lower the CPU load and  speed up your website. 2 Make your site more interactive - Well designed Jcow applications help you members to connect and communicate with others more effectively. 3 Add questions to the Registration Form - You can add new member fields, which will be displayed to the registration form, profile form, and the member browsing form. 4 Easily share stuff - Within the AJAX sharing Box, your members can publish status,  photos, videos, and blogs. 5 Customize and Extend your Jcow Network - A Jcow network consists of core apps(like "Friends" and "Messages") and optional apps(like "Blogs" and ""Videos"). You can enable/disable optional apps. You can also develop your own apps. 6 Every profile could be Unique - Members can customize their own profile theme and  add music play...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problem of Abstraction in Definitions of Data Objects

I think there is a major problem in not being able to understand and work with different levels of abstraction.  By "abstraction" in this sense I mean one concept system that somehow describes or defines (not merely relates to) another concept system.  I think this is a big problem for definitions in data models. Let us take an example in a retail business such as mortgage banking: Customer Name.  Customer Name exists in the business.  They use it all the time.  Maybe it is sometimes called Borrower Name, but the concept is the same.  This is the Level 1 abstraction. Now let us think of data values in a column in a table that holds Customer Name.  These data values are stored as a code of 1's and 0's.  Of course these bits are rendered into something we can read.  However, this is not the same as the Customer Name in the business.  I worked for a place where they prefixed the name of anyone who had recently left with "ZZZ"....
Post a Comment
Read more

The Humpty-Dumpty Principle in Definitions

In dealing with empty concepts, we came across the issue that if somebody uses a term that potentially has an unintelligible definition, they are likely to defend themselves by quickly making up some kind of definition.   I strongly suspect that in such cases, the usage of the term will be inconsistent with the definition.  Which brings us to Humpty-Dumpty. Lewis Carroll (Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson) is best known for his children's' books Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass .  It is in the latter that Humpty Dumpty - an argumentative egg perched on a wall has the following exchange with Alice: 'And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!' `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "...
Post a Comment
Read more