Dive Agencies Giving Student Records to the FBI - What do you think?

[danceswithoctopus]

If the org said no, the feds would go to a judge and obtain a subpoena by stating specifically what they wanted and why. The judge would grant the subpoena. The feds would get the records they wanted. And the process would continue to move along the way it's designed to.

So what's wrong with doing it this way?

 

[Diversauras]

There are a few possibilities, one of which is that divers get certified and are issued the C-card from the federal government. Other countries, most, are not as open as we are, their police don't have to ask or demand or get court orders (whichever really applies) for this information, they already have it and use it without the knowledge of those most affected. We at least know we are being looked at, and since it is public and open anyone can go see what is going on with the data. Would ou rather not know?

As for the comment about the "evil government", you should have been in Viet Nam or the Gulf War or even some of the governments with which the US is friendly. IMO your comment shows your paranoia not your knowledge and understanding.:mean:

 

[rstone]

Originally posted by danceswithoctopus
rstone, nicely written brief there. You obviously have played around with the law. So are you saying that Fourth Amendment protections extend only to individuals? Or might you concede that they extend to organizations, even SCUBA certification organizations as well?

danceswithoctopus, I think you got the wrong impression from my post. What I was trying to point out was that where their is a expectation of privacy as I believe most people who give information to a diving organization would have, that the 4th admendment would apply and therefore your rights to privacy would have been violated because of your expectation to privacy as no warrant was issued for that information.

Ryan Stone

 

[Spectre]

Originally posted by rstone
What I was trying to point out was that where their is a expectation of privacy as I believe most people who give information to a diving organization would have, that the 4th admendment would apply

The only information obtained is name, address and phone number. The only 'privacy' rights you have to that is the information that you are a scuba diver. If you have publicly demonstrated you are a scuba diver, then the 4th amendment does not apply.

 

[rstone]

Originally posted by funky__monks
"This information cut and pasted without permission from Nolo"

Actually Spectre although some of the information was obtained from NOLO. It was also obtained from various places including goverment websites and legal sites that had the specific case files available for online viewing. Nolo only published information that was contained in public court records and ie is not subject to copyright laws.

As I'm aware the constituation is not subject to being plagiarised nor are those case files referenced. I'm also aware you seem to change the subject instead of dealing with the facts at hand. The references are a matter of public record.

 

[danceswithoctopus]

Greg, I believe Burke's comment about the 'evil government' was meant to be sarcastic.

As for alternatives, I believe the system we have here works. I am simply advocating that the system be used. I'm not sure what you are suggesting in your post? Are you saying that by requiring the investigative agencies to obtain subpoenas before providing them with records alligns us with more totalitarian forms of government which don't have such safeguards? This is very confusing to me.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your point, as I did with rstone? But I am suggesting that requiring a subpoena is one way to ensure that our country remains free.

If you don't exercise your rights, you will loose them. (Gad! I want to put in a line from the best film of all time right here: 'Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your life')

 

[Diversauras]

Originally posted by danceswithoctopus


As for alternatives, I believe the system we have here works. I am simply advocating that the system be used. I'm not sure what you are suggesting in your post? Are you saying that by requiring the investigative agencies to obtain subpoenas before providing them with records alligns us with more totalitarian forms of government which don't have such safeguards? This is very confusing to me.

I am saying that making the govt work for the info, go public with the request for the info, is proof that our system is working. My fear would be that they could access the information without our knowledge.

 

[Spectre]

Originally posted by rstone
As I'm aware the constituation is not subject to being plagiarised nor are those case files referenced.

Plagiarize \'pla-je-,riz also j - -\ vb -rized; -riz·ing vt [plagiary] : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (a created production) without crediting the source vi: to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source - pla·gia·riz·er n

FROM: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 9th ed, (Springfield, Ma: Merriam 1981, p. 870).

2 of the 19 paragraphs in your post were quotes from the constitution. 17 of the 19 were directly plagiarised from two different pages on Nolo. There was absolutely no attempt in your post to do give any credit to the sources, and more than one person assumed it was your original post. However, except for the subject line, there was nothing original in it.

I'm also aware you seem to change the subject instead of dealing with the facts at hand. The references are a matter of public record.

I've already delt with the facts at hand on both this thread, and the thread from a couple days ago.

 

[danceswithoctopus]

Originally posted by dkigreg


I am saying that making the govt work for the info, go public with the request for the info, is proof that our system is working. My fear would be that they could access the information without our knowledge.

Thanks for the clarification. Sometimes I'm a bit slow to comprehend, it seems. So it appears you are in agreement that a subpoena is the preferred method for obtaining the records (at the risk of putting words into your mouth).

 

[JustAddWater]

I value my privacy and the rights of privacy. As a student of history, I'm aware of how such rights have been infringed upon by some ignoble figures in the past. Still, I think we have the tendancy to use the term "right to privacy" as an ideal, without fully considering its meaning to the letter of the law. Unfortunately, when one says, "my privacy rights have been violated", the term becomes a cliche. I believe THAT is dangerous.

I use credit cards, the telephone, the computer. I own guns, subscribe to magazines, am finger printed for my job, and possess several licenses. I travel, and have worked in foreign countries. I'm not worried if the FBI knows that I dive.