is wiretapping constitutional?
87813
Yes, as others said, it takes a court order from a Judge and the legal requirements are very tough.  Patriot Act!  I wish idiots would learn to read something before criticizing.  The Patriot Act has many, many parts.  Wiretapping has been allowed for years - way before the Patriot Act.   Wire taps pertaining to spying and domestic terrorism have been authorized, again for years, when signed a Judge in a Secret Court.  None of this has anything to do with what Bush has been recently accused of or the Patriot Act.  Yes, wiretapping is Constitutional and legal under law.
518819
A right to privacy is implied but not directly stated in the Constitution. With the Supreme Court stacked the way it is, I doubt they will declare it unconstitutional. I have dropped my phone company (Verizon) entirely and gone with Cable Modem and VOIP.. I recommend anyone concerned about the "Big Brother" state America is becoming do the same.
590920
Well, freedom of speech, does still exsists, no?\nIt's a part of the Constitution, no? \n\nHey ! You're not a terrorist, or are you?\n\nP.S. I allow the CIA, FBI to check this site. No problem wih that. If you're standing right in your shoes, you should not be affraid to share your comment/ideas...
27019
Except in rare circumstances, the authorities must go before a judge to obtain a legal warrant before they can do this.  Even in situations where they can do this without a warrant (this possibility is currently being debated and may make it to the United States Supreme Court) they must go through a very lengthy, detail, multiple step process to do so.\n\nUnless you are telephoning (or receiving calls from) known terrorist group members outside the U.S. I wouldn’t worry about it.
847437
This is not a yes or no question. That is like asking if the speed limit should be 65. In certain circumstances, yes, but not in a school zone.\n\nTry being specific about what condition for wiretapping you are questioning.
1181283
Our rights aren't being abused unless we're making phone calls to Al-Sadr over in Iraq. Every action being taken is completely Constitutional, and the only court being passed up (FISA) is unconstitutional in nature because President Carter illegally ceded his power. Nothing going on is abusing my rights, and I am fine with the federal government catching terrorists.\n\nRead More of My Thoughts- http://www.rightontheright.com
1171495
Absolutely Not!\n\nTheres no reason they can't get a warrant. \n\n(Unless their spying on people they shouldn't be)
103455
Yes.  An awesome power like the ability to spy on citizens should never be unchecked.  It is ASKING for abuse, whether it be a few bad apples, or a corrupt leadership.  \n\nIt is also the fault of the legislative and judicial branches for not asserting their constitutional duty to re-balance the government and restore our democratic system to balance.\n\nForce the legislature to assert it's control by voting against your Replublican representative who is compromising YOUR SAY in how things are done.  It's the best way to show them how you feel about their lack of spine!
448326
No State has a free reign on wiretapping. They all have VERY restraining laws. on TOP of that there is ALSO a FEDERAL statute that makes wiretapping illegal. So if the state does not get you the FEDS might.\nHere are some example of state and federal statutes:\n\nIn Pennsylvania for instance 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703 prohibits:\n"(1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any    other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication;"\nwith following exceptions:\n1. "An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a   provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities   are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept,   disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his   employment "\nOR\n2. "Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting   at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement  officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving  suspected criminal activities, including"\n\nIn California, Cal Pen Code § 631 (2006) states:\n"Any person who, by means of any machine, instrument, or contrivance, or in any other manner, intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection, whether physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively, or otherwise, with any telegraph or telephone wire, line, cable, or instrument, including the wire, line, cable, or instrument of any internal telephonic communication system, or who willfully and without the consent of all parties to the communication, or in any unauthorized manner, reads, or attempts to read, or to learn the contents or meaning of any message, report, or communication while the same is in transit or passing over any wire, line, or cable, or is being sent from, or received at any place within this state; or who uses, or attempts to use, in any manner, or for any purpose, or to communicate in any way, any information so obtained, or who aids, agrees with, employs, or conspires with any person or persons to unlawfully do, or permit, or cause to be done any of the acts or things mentioned above in this section, is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($ 2,500), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison, or by both a fine and imprisonment in the county jail or in the state prison."\nExceptions:\n" (b) This section shall not apply (1) to any public utility engaged in the business of providing communications services and facilities, or to the officers, employees or agents thereof, where the acts otherwise prohibited herein are for the purpose of construction, maintenance, conduct or operation of the services and facilities of the public utility, or (2) to the use of any instrument, equipment, facility, or service furnished and used pursuant to the tariffs of a public utility, or (3) to any telephonic communication system used for communication exclusively within a state, county, city and county, or city correctional facility." \n\n\nThe FEDERAL law  says: \nExcept as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who--\n(a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;\n[is guilty of  a crime]\nEXCEPTIONS:\n(ii) being used by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties\n\n\nCONCLUSION:\nDO NOT EVEN THINK about wiretapping someone unless you have their consent, you are a police office and have probable cause, or you work for telephone company and it is a pert of your normal job. YOU WILL get slammed with state and federal penalties.
246641
I don't know if there is a definite measurable point where the ends justify the means, but I do know that it does become a necessity, especially in today's world with the constant flow of information and ideas. It is a sad thing to be sure, that our own government needs to spy on us, however the greater good is served. Think about it this way, lets say another horrible attack happened on US soil, killing thousands, and it came out that the government had the means in place to stop it, but didn't pursue them for fear of violating your privacy. How outraged do you think the general populous would be, honestly? They would never live it down. The thing is, they are preventing these attacks, but because they aren't happening there is no outrage, so the government is the Big Bad Wolf now. It is a catch 22. Also, can you point out the section of the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights that covers your right to privacy, I can't seem to find it.
310846
To those above, all because we've been wiretapping before doesn't make it any more 'right'.  Slavery went on for hundreds of years, and it still wasn't 'right'.  Besides, according to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution: "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".\n\nFor those of you who have 'nothing to hide', you'd be surprised about how quickly the tide can turn.  During the McCarthy era, merely saying some thing remotely related to communism to the wrong person was enough to get you under the eye of the FBI.
850640
yes they do have more power than they advertise. since 9-11 the government has passed things such as "The Patriot Act" and "terror Watch". Terror Watch allows the government to essentially spy on law abiding citizens when that is forbidden in the constitution. The Patriot Act allows the government to tap phone lines and check phone records on again law abiding citizens and the ability to search        cars,homes and businesses without a warrent which is also contradictory to the writting of the constitution.
568477
If government agencies such as the NSA are allowed to overhear or read private phone conversations or e-mails or otherwise scrutinize private communications of people who live in this country — whether citizens or non-citizens — *without* the scrutiny and oversight of judges, who are in the last instance answerable to the law and to the public, they are creating a domain within the state that is exempt from the sovereignty of the people. This undermines democracy (however fake of a democracy it is anyway) and creates a state within the statue — usually thought to be a distinguishing feature of dictatorships, in which secret services, torturers, etc. are also neither answerable to the law nor to the people.
109924
First off, Domestic Warrentless Spying is a misnomer.  For decades, the government can listen to calls without a warrent, and then go for a warrent afterwards.  In this case, the Bush administration used executive power to say that a warrent isn't even needed after the fact, which is something the Clinton adminstration did as well.  It is not to monitor your calls to your friends.  It is to monitor calls that are received from and placed to known terrorists overseas.\nSecond, Congress passed a law which Bush signed, creating strict restrictions against torture and affirming that it is illegal.  So, Bush isn't supporting torture.
144968
Gawddd. . keep drinking the liberal Kool-Aid.\n\nLogically (but who would expect you to understand logic) it's virtually impossible to prove a negative so you wouldn't ever have 'evidence' that something was not used;  however, just from the fact that you have no evidence it was used would seem to be proof enough. . .if it was, there would have been a leak by now.\n\np.s.  Exactly how would wiretapping enable someone to win an election?
90676
Wire tapping is perfectly legal. Within the context of domestic crime, yes a warrant must be issued by a judge. In terms of national security, the precident has always been there for the interception of enemy communications (whether that be mail, paper packages, radio transmissions, cable transmissions, etc). In times of war it is justified to do such a thing.
5031
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state there is a right to privacy.  However, the Supreme Court has decided that the Constitution offers the right implicitly.