i'm not sure why everyone keeps saying they are invading our privacy when no laws are in place that says they cannot collect data... they can't wiretap your phone, thats a law, but intercepting text messages and data from servers, how is that illegal? kind of a gray area, if you ask me...

not your effect... it's data sent through the internet

still your Property!
How about the Mailman reading your Mail,since the Postal Service uses Public Roads to convey your Mail,which therefore is in the Public Whatever?

mail has been around long enough to make laws against it... people shouldn't get mad because the government is using a loophole, since nothing has been decided what they can or can't gather...i disagree with what they are doing, but in reality, nothing has been done to stop it besides whining and crying...

it appears the nsa has joined mingle2

i would lol but its not funny

Of course it does. The internet is but a public highway used by all. But until that information is posted upon a public forum like here, it is not public data, it is private and the fifth amendment applies.

It is our right to have reasonable privacy, irregardless of the media. It is our right to be secure in our houses, persons, papers and effects.

Now this message, by my posting has passed into the public domain and I have no right to expect it be be private by my very act of posting. However, the underlying metadata collected by this site is an expectation of privacy that can only be released by a warrant with oath sworn and court approved.

And what does that have to do with it? Nothing changes, privacy is privacy and due process of law is due process of law.

Actually not, the states convention method was purposely made very difficult for a purpose, after all look at what the founders did to the Articles of Confederation.

So please do put words into peoples mouths when it comes to preserving the republic, after all look at the mess we are in because it has been ignored.

Actually that would be inaccurate, we are governed by the enumerated powers of the Constitutions, Federal and State, but the Federal is the supreme law of the land.

Article VI, Clause 2:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This has been confirmed by the Supreme Court:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 2 L. Ed. 2d 60 (1803).

This law is so powerful it is still being cited:

Nat. Fedn. of Indep. Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 567 U.S. 1, 183 L. Ed. 2d 450 (2012). (Better know as Odumbocare)

"Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. "The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)." (you know it is hard to find a copy of 1 Cranch 137, but I have had the honor to read that opinion in that book, the 5 U.S. 137 is in the legal libraries)

But what is even more important is that we can ignore a very large portion of all that crap in the federal register with total impunity.

Norton v Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office, it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

And a court of law is my friend, it is where justice is administered.

Ah, but the courts define nothing, they but offer opinions which mean little until other courts cite their opinions in the opinions they are offering. Once it has been cited numerous times over a span of a couple of decades, it becomes an accepted principle.

That is why law dictionaries are so important, it takes centuries to change a legal definition. And also why so much Latin is used, a dead language where the definition can never change, period.

Boy do lawyers and courts love you, an unlimited source of revenue.

Black's Law, Revised 4th Edition, 1968:

"EFFECT, v. To do; to produce; to make; to bring to pass; to execute; enforce; accomplish. Vailsburg Motor Corporation v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 110 N.J.L. 209, 164 A. 408, 409. A belief that a mortgage would "effect" a preference under the bankruptcy act is equivalent to a belief that it would "operate as" a preference. Ogden v. Reddish, D.C.Ky., 200 F. 977, 979.

EFFECT, n. Result. Western Indemnity Co. v. MacKechnie, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W. 456, 460; Beeler v. People, 58 Colo. 451, 146 P. 762, 764. The result which an instrument between parties will produce in their relative rights, or which a statute will produce upon the existing law, as discovered from the language used, the forms employed, or other materials for construing it. The operation of a law, of an agreement, or an act. Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342. The phrases "take effect," "be in force," "go into operation," etc., are used interchangeably. Maize v. State, 4 Ind. 342.

With Effect

With success; as, to prosecute an action with effect. Schutze v. Dabney, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W. 342, 347.

Yes effects, could also be argued as papers.

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

e-mail and other "data" sent electronically over the internet are still YOUR papers if you dont think so hack the fbe or nsa and
find out


ask snowden wasn't his info from the internet communications between
nsa departments