Slight update: altho this was the original meaning, I added “at times” for clarity.

Why did we intone that reading someone else’s mail is a federal offense, but searching & even then reading their emails at times became part of our national policy?

Regarding “surveillance,” The Fourth Amendment of The United States’ Constitution clearly states “the right of the people to be secure in [our] papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” continuing, “and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”

(The entire Fourth Amendment Of The Constitution states:

“The 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, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons, or things to be seized.”

Given that video recordings, photographs, audio recordings, computer files, & the like were not known at that time, “the people’s right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure in their papers,” (emphasis mine,) clearly sets a precedent for the legal right of being secure from unreasonable search and seizure of other forms of records: videos, photographs, audio recordings, computer files, & the like.)

We have to ask, then, “When is a search of our papers, effects, & the like reasonable?”

You cannot answer that by saying that “searching every communication of every person is reasonable” —

Just being a person in the world is not a good enough reason to believe we have criminal evidence.

. . . Clearly, 9/11 scared us. I am not saying there are not foreign & to some lesser degree domestic threats that are outside-possibilities which are themselves for us a legitimate concern, still;

But you have to understand something: if we locked everyone in their homes “because they could get hurt too easily outside,” we might increase our quantity of Life, if all our most basic necessities were provided, but “locking everybody in their homes for their safety” would so outrageously drain our quality of Life, the quantity of Life profited would be next to worthless.

We wouldn’t do it! It wouldn’t make sense.

That’s why recording, monitoring, & misusing all our communications may profit us some safety —

I am admitting we will lose some smaller amount of safety, by not authoritarianly monitoring us —

But we’d lose too much quality of Life living under the heel of an all-to-human authority figure recording, monitoring, & misusing all our personal, whimsical, soul-bearing communications.

Ever had a boss – or a teacher – who misunderstood you?

We quite simply do not need totalitarian monitoring, even if we were attacked horrifically on 9/11.

So, for me, while The Patriot Act was in part an understandable reaction to that day, in the end appraisal, it is too much an overreaction.

Let’s Discontinue The Unnecessary Monitoring Of Our Communications & Protect Our 4th Amendment Protection From Unreasonable Search & Seizure – To Regain Our Peace Of Mind In Our Communications & Brainchildren.

Thank You For Everything –
Joe Valentyn