FBI Collecting your Information

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

This is just fragments of some doc's on McCarthyism, It ruined alot of peoples lives, and our wonderful FBI was involved. I know that what is happening now is different but a witch hunt is a witch hunt.
McCarthy also began receiving information from his friend, Edgar J. Hoover, head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). William Sullivan, one of Hoover's agents, later admitted that: "We were the ones who made the McCarthy hearings possible. We fed McCarthy all the material he was using."
Was McCarthyism to blame? Obviously the congressional hearings, loyalty programs, and blacklists affected the lives of the men and women caught up in them. But beyond that, it is hard to tell. The statistics are imprecise. Ten thousand people may have lost their jobs. Is that few or many? It may well be useful to reflect on an earlier debate among historians about the application of sanctionsin this case the apparently low number of whippings administered under slaveryto realize that it may not be necessary to whip many slaves to keep the rest of the plantation in line. Ironically, just as these social commentators were lauding the resilience of American democracy, the anti-Communist crusade was undermining it. The political repression of the McCarthy era fostered the growth of the national security state and facilitated its expansion into the rest of civil society. On the pretext of protecting the nation from Communist infiltration, federal agents attacked individual rights and extended state power into movie studios, universities, labor unions, and many other ostensibly independent institutions. The near universal deference to the federal government's formulation of the Communist threat abetted the process and muted opposition to what was going on.

Moreover, even after the anti-Communist furor receded, the antidemocratic practices associated with it continued. We can trace the legacy of McCarthyism in the FBI's secret COINTELPRO program of harassing political dissenters in the 1960s and 1970s, the Watergate-related felonies of the Nixon White House in the 1970s, and the Iran-Contra scandals in the 1980s. The pervasiveness of such wrongdoing reveals how seriously the nation's defenses against official illegalities had eroded in the face of claims that national security took precedence over ordinary law. McCarthyism alone did not cause these outrages; but the assault on democracy that began during the 1940s and 1950s with the collaboration of private institutions and public agencies in suppressing the alleged threat of domestic communism was an important early contribution.

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/schrecker6.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The FBI didnt violate your rights.

If NAUI released any information to the FBI, all they did was violate your trust or possibly a written agreement that you had with them.

The only entity that can violate the 4th Amendment is the Government....

You deftly quoted the 4th Amendment....Congratulations on your ability to know where to look for it. Understanding the 4th Amendment to the Constitution is another matter all together.

When taking into consideration the 4th Amendment ....(Any Constitutional Law Lawyers/Professors out there be sure to chime in if I am getting this wrong) you must first have a working definition of what a search or seizure is. Merriam Webster defines Search as both verb and noun. The noun (which we are interested in says that a SEARCH is the act of searching....Searching is
search \serch\ verb [ME cerchen, fr. MF cerchier to go about, survey, search, fr. LL circare to go about, fr. L circum round about more at circum-] (14c)
verb transitive: 1. To look into or over carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something: as
a : to examine in seeking something <searched the north field
b : to look through or explore by inspecting possible places of concealment or investigating suspicious circumstances
c : to read thoroughly : check; esp : to examine a public record or register for information about <search land titles>
d : to examine for articles concealed on the person
e : to look at as if to discover or penetrate intention or nature
2. To uncover, find, or come to know by inquiry or scrutiny usu. used with out

Now that we have a basic working definintion of what a search is, how does that apply to the 4th Amendment? Well......REASONABLENESS of course.......

A real quick and simple way to look at reasonableness in governmental intrusion into our lives is to look at what the......
SUPREME COURT uses to help determine the level of government involvement:

It is very simple...i'm sure you can follow along: A basic three stage model will be the easiest to understand:

Levels Of Governmental vs. Citizen interaction in relation to the 4th Amendment

1. Governmental personnel asking a person a question.
2. Governmental intrusion when there is articulable suspicion that a person has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime (THAT's "PROBABLE CAUSE" FOR THE LAY PERSON)(You Need that to get a SEARCH WARRANT)
3. Arrest or seizure based on that articulable suspicion.

Now when we look at the three in toto, we can scrap #'s 2 and 3 as they offer a scenario where there is a great deal of governmental intrusion, whereas #1.......JUST ASKING A QUESTION or QUESTIONS is just that. There is nothing unreasonable about the government ASKING SOMEONE A QUESTION.

What then does all of this mean? (That's if I remembered everything)

Simple: Based on a reasonableness standard there was no unreasonable governmental intrusion into the lives and/or property of anyone.

END RESULT: THE FBI DID NOTHING WRONG....THEY
JUST ASKED QUESTIONS

If someone gave them any of your information that you didn't want them to give out, then I reccommend that you file a suit against them.
 
Originally posted by sharpenu
Well, you ask what rights we are giving up by the FBI checking our records with NAUI. Well, MY copy of the constitution has a section called the Bill of Rights. Let's see what they say.

Amendment 4:
No 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....and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

I just love when people start quoting the Bill of Rights and try and adapt it into an argument.

Here's my questions for you.
  • Do you advertise yourself as a diver [e.g. stickers on your car, t-shirts, etc...]
  • Do you admit to being a diver in public?
  • Do you dive in public?

I think I'm safe in assuming that you do one of the above?

The 4th amendment does _not_ protect you from anything you knowingly expose to the public [1]. If you have done anything to make it known you are a diver in public [like... posting on this board], then you can't make any 4th amendment claims to privacy about anyone telling the FBI that you are a diver, as you have already made that information public.


[1] LEWIS v. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 206 (1966)
 
I wonder what those who claim privacy invasion would say if fbi would have asked flight schools for their records prior to 9/11 and prevented the horror. I bet most I hope would cheer in favor of fbi.
Nobody's privacy is being invaded by offering any information which might help an investigation of that importance. We should be willing to help. Let's get real here, this is the least of privacy invasion which is all around us.
 
I hate to tell anyone but there is no mandate for the government or any government agency to *prevent* crime. This whole thing now is just a big power grab by the government and is a VERY BAD THING!

Just try to sue the police department for not preventing the murder of a family member even though you have proof that they knew it was about to happen and could have easily prevented it. Time and again the courts have held that there is no duty to prevent crime, only to punish it.

Funny, the very same people that are now running around collecting information on scuba divers on only a hint that the terrorists were *seeking* that capability can't be held accountable for not doing anything when they had specific information about people, means and potential targets.

Anybody who believes that if you are law abiding you have nothing to fear is nieve. Anyone who says it is a liar, and remember that the government (police, FBI etc.) are allowed to lie to you and still use it in court.

Those who give up essencial liberty for temporary security deserve neither. The excersize for the reader is to identify to origin of this quote.

We are back to the '50's and the "communist witch hunts" all over again.
 
THE SKY IS FALLING......THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!

Or how about.....

THEY ARE COMING TO TAKE YOU AWAY!!!!

You guys crack me up....THE NEW WORLD ORDER....Ooooohhhhhh!!!

RUN FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!........RUN WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME!!

CAREFUL, THEY MAY BE TRYING TO SPIKE OUR NITROX WITH A MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE!!!!

;-0 ;-0 ;-0 ;-0 ;-0
 
this is the typical come back of of someone in law enforcement I guess, for one who beleives that an individuals rights are just an impedance of his ability to do his job.
I know that our law enforcement would never abuse there powers. Oh gee wis I wonder what happened at Ruby Ridge??
Or maybe even Waco. We know that there were all kinds of cover ups at both of these incidents.


http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Waco/rrprosec.htm
http://www.stormfront.org/ruby.htm
 
Originally posted by funky__monks


When I was in Dublin, Ireland I went out to Temple Bar with some customers. They pointed out all the cameras on the street corners and buildings all throughout Temple Bar. I asked how people reacted to that, because in the US everyone would be screaming and whining about their rights to privacy. Their comment was the only people that don't like them are the pick-pockets that had to go find themselves some real jobs.

Ireland isnt America is it!! You cant compare other countries to America because America is a gem which cannot be duplicated. It is possible however for America to be downgraded to the level of mediocrity which bedevils other countries. I have a feeling that many of those who support the restricting of our freedoms would draw the line if the Govt. decided to limit the freedom to bear arms. Afterall, if the govt took everyones guns away, wouldnt it serve to keep weapons away from terrorists? Is the right to bear arms more important than the right to personal privacy?
 
Originally posted by pipedope

Those who give up essencial liberty for temporary security deserve neither. The excersize for the reader is to identify to origin of this quote.


Benjamin Franklin
 

Back
Top Bottom