2 votes

SCOTUS to Rule Prior NSA and Intelligence Collected Data In-Admissible in Court of Law

We should have a judicial ruling that all NSA and government collected private information data on American Citizens are inadmissible in a court of law because it was acquired illegally and without a proper warrant.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

I have never been convicted of any crime ever. Yet the Federal Government digitally stores my fingerprints, retinal scan, biometric data, and all forms of my digital communications. I do not consent to the Federal Government having any of this information in their possession because I have the Constitutional Right Not to incriminate myself and 4Th Amendment rights. Should I one day commit a crime, any digital information the Federal Government has on me may be used to convict me in a court of law, or Not.

Any digital information generated from my person belongs to me and I will demand any and all of that information can't be admissible in a court of law if it was gathered prior to my arrest or indictment. Only the digital information and physical information from the point in time of an indictment or arrest against me, gathered on me using a warrant going forward from that point in time, can be used against me in a court of law, in combination with my 5TH Amendment rights.

A better understanding of the 5TH Amendment and how it comes into play here should help iron out these NSA efficacy data collection problems.

Should there be a statute of limitations on the digital information the government can keep and store on you, if any at all?

What difference does it make if they can't use the previously collected data against you in a court of law, which begs the question, so why waste taxpayer money collecting it on you in the first place.

It all comes dowe to the time date stamp on the file, when it was created on you, that can be found in the properties tab on the data file. If it was created before the warrant date, then all that information in that file is inadmissible in a court of law.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

They can blackmail anyone they want

They can blackmail anyone they want, and when you consider the six degrees of Kevin Bacon, they can get anything out of anyone. Pretty scary.

My point is, It becomes

My point is, It becomes painfully obvious there is no good reason to indefinitely store all this information on American Citizens except for sinister reasons.

Feds don't have to go to court to use illegally collected data

The metadata that indicates who you've been talking to could be used to make you the target of an investigation by numerous federal agencies, e.g. IRS, DEA, Fish and Wildlife. As long as they can manufacture another reason that you were investigated, the intelligence data never makes it to court.

-1

Why? Well, because you have a bogus headline.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

I was very careful to title

I was very careful to title for that reason. "To" indicates at some point I envision in the future. I am very perceptive.

"The US to pull it's military from all foriegn countries,

and go back to following the Monroe Doctrine."

I can dream about that happening, but me saying it that way is misleading.

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” – Dresden James

A bit of deception can be

A bit of deception can be used for good.