Decius wrote:

The Bush administration said yesterday that it plans to start using the nation's most advanced spy technology for domestic purposes soon, rebuffing challenges by House Democrats over the idea's legal authority.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said his department will activate his department's new domestic satellite surveillance office in stages, starting as soon as possible with traditional scientific and homeland security activities -- such as tracking hurricane damage, monitoring climate change and creating terrain maps.

The NAO surge continues roughly as you'd expect ...

"I have had a firsthand experience with the trust-me theory of law from this administration," said Harman, citing the 2005 disclosure of the National Security Agency's domestic spying program, which included warrantless eavesdropping on calls and e-mails between people in the United States and overseas. "I won't make the same mistake. . . . I want to see the legal underpinnings for the whole program."

Thompson called DHS's release Thursday of the office's procedures and a civil liberties impact assessment "a good start." But, he said, "We still don't know whether the NAO will pass constitutional muster since no legal framework has been provided."

I think there is some reasonable debate here about whether people have no expectation of privacy in regard to things that are only visible from above. At the time the Constitution was written, certainly, a hedge afforded some privacy.

I don't think the constitution grants anyone privacy in their telephone conversations. The constitution certaintly can not prevent you from having freedom of speech - but I see nowhere in the document where it says one can't listen in on your phone converations.

Using the telephone/internet - isn't a right at all. Listening in on telephone/internet traffic isn't forbidden in the constitution either - so if a terrorist or NON-terrorist wants to talk without having someone listen in - they have to either setup their own telephone network; use two cans and strings, or just go talk in in their house privately.

I'd be glad to change my mind on this if someone could show me evidence to the contrary.

ibenez wrote:
I don't think the constitution grants anyone privacy in their telephone conversations.

Listening in on telephone/internet traffic isn't forbidden in the constitution either - so if a terrorist or NON-terrorist wants to talk without having someone listen in - they have to either setup their own telephone network; use two cans and strings, or just go talk in in their house privately.

I'll bite, but you are trolling. You could have obviously Googled the answer to your question. You are, of course, free to disagree with established precedent. In fact, the Supreme Court held that wiretapping wasn't covered by the 4th amendment for several decades before this decision. However it is, in fact, currently the law in the United States that the content of telephone conversations are protected by the 4th amendment whether you agree with it or not.

Furthermore, during the period when telephone conversations were not held to be covered by the 4th amendment, Congress required by statute that a warrant be obtained for them anyway, and it seems very clear to me that they would do so again, particularly given FISA.

That brings us to the subject of terrorists, which you mentioned. Without dissecting your statement let me simply point out that although the 4th amendment does protect the privacy of terrorist telephone calls, it has been held that warrantless surveillance of those calls is "reasonable" per the 4th amendment. The reason that the NSA needs a warrant for domestic surveillance of foreign intelligence targets is because it is required by FISA, a statute, and not because it is required by the 4th amendment.

The bottom line is that it is extremely unlikely that you are going to see a situation wherein the police can listen to ordinary telephone calls without a warrant regardless of how you interpret the Constitution.