Starbucks and firearms…

Critical Thinking, Definitions, Firearms, Government, Legal, Politics, Social Issues, Uncategorized

Starbucks is getting heat right now over people openly carrying firearms into their stores where it is legal to open carry firearms anywhere unless prohibited by legal means. Gun blogs, such as Alphecca, are posting the story and providing discussion about the issue.

The Brady Campaign is using a scare tactic to try an limit the carrying into Starbuck locations. If Starbuck caves into the Brady Campaign, I’ll never buy at Starbucks again…

Here is my issue…

Statements such as the following by Paul Helmke lack any critical thinking…

The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning. Firearm fatalities are consistently ranked as one of the leading causes of death among young people in America. As Dr. David Hemenway of the Harvard School of Public Health wrote in 2004, “Across U.S. regions and states, where there are more guns, children are at a significantly greater risk of dying.”

Showing large numbers of deaths without a reason
Of the 30k that are killed, lets see what constitutes that 30,000 deaths…

Newbius has a page that discusses the CDC statistics on deaths. Go read it and be educated… That is government data there, and the data is not provided by the “gun nuts”–whoever they may be.

It is all a lack of Critical Thinking
The reasoning seems to be that firearms could cause death, so we should deny entry of such ‘dangerous’ items into Starbucks…

Should we not allow anyone to enter Starbucks since we all carry E. coli? Should we deny entry to those 1,000,000 or so individuals who carry the virus that causes AIDS? Should we deny entry to … You get the idea… SCARE TACTIC!

Don’t get me started about denying drive-thru service since automobile accidents cause about 35,000 deaths per year in the USA…

Don’t be fooled. You are just as likely to be shot by someone in Starbucks as you are contracting AIDS because Starbucks serves those with the virus that causes AIDS. You are much more likely to die in a car accident than end up with the two examples from the last sentence–perhaps you should stop driving to be safe?

Think critically. Fight for everyone’s rights rather tan jump on a bandwagon that has no thought to their reasoning–especially when there is NO logic for the reasons they give…

No Comments

Radio Times and their piece on Childhood Obesity…

Critical Thinking, Definitions, Empathy, Food Safety, Government, Social Issues, Uncategorized

I listened with interest to Radio Times, a radio show on public radio today (2/16/2010). I found myself trying to think critically on the issue–childhood obesiety. I feel like there are a few items that could have been dealt with better or that were omitted from the discussion even if the issue was ‘brought up’ in the episode.

I felt as if those interviewed were looking to provide an answer as to why “we” are overweight and how “we” can solve that problem. Topics ranged from gender, ethnic group, etc… Why not simply say they ingested more calories than they expended?

Those on the show stated that “times have changed” and that television, the Internet, … all mean we have less time to do what our grandparents did. While I disagree on that–my grandparents didn’t have chicken at the store, they had to raise it, kill it, cook it… I recall them saying they had less free time because they had none of the conveniences that we have today…

Times sure have changed. However, my grandparents use to say that you had to work and care about yourself and those you love–don’t expect the government or your employer to look after your best interests (they went through the Great Depression).

Today, “we” expect too much… We expect music to be ‘free’ on the internet, we expect to have a car, a house, medical insurance, etc… Why?

Medical insurance was started during WWII when there were wage freezes. Employers created a way to “pay” people more that did not violate the rules and offered health insurance as part of their employment. There was no desire to give health insurance…. Rather, companies wanted to attract better employees–paying more or providing health insurance were the same thing. Providing medical insurance had nothing to do with “people deserve medical care.” Yet, society at large now sees medical insurance as a necessity for everyone.

We think “we” are so educated and “advanced” that everyone should have food, a home, medical insurance, … I too think it would be nice to have ‘free’ medical insurance and care. However, how do we fund these “expectations?” How do we pay for it all? You can’t have everything at no cost–either we pay directly or indirectly (taxes).

Personal responsibility should be taught. You want “this?” Go work for it… Go earn it… You can’t just go ‘take’ it (as is seen with music sharers and the like–that is like walking into the music store and walking out with a Vinyl Record without paying for it even if “we” don’t “see” it that way today).

I hear people say, “But not everyone can afford it.” I agree. However, I have always obtained insurance–it wasn’t always cheap, and it wasn’t always what I wanted. I’m a diabetic, and I have to have a company provide it since insurance companies will not give me long-term insurance as an individual due to my diabetes. I can create my own company and get it that way. There are options, even if they aren’t very affordable. Again, why does it have to be affordable? How do you get $10 of fish for $5? I’ll tell you–you don’t. You get less fish.

The issue with obesity, childhood or otherwise, is more caloric intake than caloric expenditure. This may be due to unhealthy food, portion size, sedentary life style, or any combination of those, or other, issues.

It may not really be an issue of ‘healthy’ food versus ‘unhealthy’ food is it? If ‘healthy’ food may not make us ‘feel full’ (as is seen with sushi vs. McDonalds Big Mac and Fries), might a person eat more calories (sushi) to feel as full as a person who eats the Big Mac? I would love to see an unbiased study looking at that issue…

Times have changed. They sure have changed (internet, television, …) Why do we think that ‘it should be easier’ for us to feed our families healthy food? Why pass on that responsibility to the food grower, manufacturer, distributor, packager, etc.? Why isn’t it OUR responsibility as parents or as the parent? The guests stated it shouldn’t be so hard… Why should it be easy? Why do we have an expectation of “easy?” This is what I do not understand… If there is such a market for this healthy eating, why don’t your guests start the company? It might be that providing that type of food isn’t so inexpensive. I don’t know. I’m not in the food industry, and I’m not a farmer.

Has anyone told their kids “don’t worry about work, life will be easy. Your employer/government will take care of you.”? I doubt any parent would provide that advice to their children. Yet, here I was hearing that “it shouldn’t be so hard” to raise a family today” and that “others” should make it easier for me… All on public radio.

Teach children about portion size, calories, food groups, and medical/scientific facts. I would guess that most parents don’t realize what portion size is appropriate (for them or their kids).

Why do “we” feel a need to make others do what is best for us? We, as individuals and as a society, should welcome the responsibility of doing what is best for us.

Instead of saying “companies can’t make this,” “you have to make that,” “you can’t advertise to…,” or “you need to have more ‘healthy’ alternatives,” I’d love us to teach our kids, and ourselves, that marketing tries to get us to buy their product. We need to teach our kids that the kids on television may not even like what they are eating–kids believe what they see at those ages, and we, as parents, need to educate them.

If we don’t teach personal responsibility re: food and tell our kids that others are responsible for their weight, what are we telling the public at large about responsibility re: anything else? What about education? Is it the school’s fault if the kids fail? Is it the same answer if the kid never works on becoming educated? Is it the school’s responsibility to raise the children or simply to provide a forum and location for education?

Putting the responsibility for “what is best for me” on someone else absolves me of any failure since “it wasn’t up to me.” However, the fault IS with the end-user since the end-user made a choice–to buy, eat, chew, swallow, … the food in question. It may be a medical issue (hormones, digestive tract issue, etc.), but those that are obese have some responsibility for their condition–whether a cause (due to eating) of it or a responsibility to care for a medical condition.

My oldest child–fed entirely on breast milk for 18 months–is now at 95% on both height and weight. My youngest, premature by 90 days, is fit and trim at the 50% mark for weight and 75% for height. Generalizations about breast milk and weight are not, I think, appropriate—especially where some mothers can’t produce, some babies won’t attach, … Address the issue–caloric intake vs. caloric expenditures. While other issues, ethnic groups, social and economic status, etc. may have influences on what and how we eat, we are all human.

On a side note, I’d love for this “race” word to go away like the “sex” form on governmental forms (they mean gender)… Neither are appropriate. We are all human. It isn’t as if we are cats and dogs that can’t breed. Why do “we” need to distinguish ourselves from others? Doing so, in my opinion, is part of the problem… If we were all “the same group” and all the rules applied to all of us in that group, what is the problem? Yes, idealistic. However, which world is better?

At some point, it becomes about realizing that “others” can make decisions that “I” think are wrong, and I can still let them make those choices rather than removing choices from their plate. The guests stated they were not suggesting we remove choices. I agree.

However, by suggesting that the responsibility is not ours, you minimize the probability of success–it would be like giving a hungry person a fish rather than teaching him to fish. The person still eats, but the person fishing says it is their responsibility to catch the fish while the other says nobody gave me any fish today. While they may both go hungry, one can go out and do something about their hunger while the other simply waits for someone else to “solve” their problem.

Calories are calories. Lets simply reduce the amount ingested and try to increase the caloric expenditure through exercise. Less in and more out = less weight.

What say you?

No Comments

Mistakes…

Critical Thinking, Empathy, Social Issues

People make mistakes. We all do. Yet, many try to deny making any…

Famous people

McCain said we would not be pulling out of the Middle East any time soon, and the Democrats, including Obama, said that a quick pullout would happen-going as far as to set a deadline (that has past).

We are still in the Middle East…

Why not simply say, “I was wrong. McCain had enough experience to know something that I, at that time, could not foresee.”

How would saying that or admitting to being ‘wrong’ or mis-informed weaken Mr. Obama?

I don’t get it…

Perfect…?

There is no ‘perfect’ person on this planet (or off-world for that matter) that is always right. Too many things are subjective or fluid to be classified as ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ Even on factual issues, the ‘brightest’ person is not always right.

Isn’t that okay?

The public expects politicians and others to be ‘perfect’ and are, lo and behold, surprised when people are not perfect. From actors to politicians–people are … people.

They are no better or worse than you or me. They may think they are–buying into their own marketing, but they put their pants on one let at a time unless they either jump into their pants or slip into them while down on the bed, the floor, the chair, …

You think you ‘know’ an actor? Guess again. You know the persona they market…

The CEO of a major corporation sits down at the table in the cafeteria with all those other ‘higher-ups,’ like the CFO, COO, etc., and they eat and talk about the same stuff you do at your table. Sure, they might occasionally talk about business, but everyone’s business is slightly different. They talk about dinners, parties, cars, … While the party, house, car, etc. might be different, they have feelings that are quite similar to yours.

Okay, we are all people…

People make mistakes. Size and scope may be different, but a mistake is not who you are…

Realize that a mistake is simply a mistake. Even if others make assumptions about you based on your mistakes, you are not defined by your mistakes. You might still need to work on not making the same mistake or you might need to fix the situation. If you make a mistake in a business, fix it if you can–this could be leaving the company, this could be solving a problem with supplies, this could be just about any issue. If you get angry when you shouldn’t have been upset, calm down and try hard to not get angry the next time.

Mistakes happened in the past

You past is … your past. You can’t change it. You shouldn’t define yourself, what you are now or in the future, by what has gone on in the past.

Future. What is to be. What hasn’t happened yet. You can do something different, you can act different, you can become something different, and you can change–fix those mistakes.

The only thing stopping you is … you.

Gogs

Gogs once said that a door might not open if you bang your head on the door. Gogs said you can keep banging your head against the door, but all you are going to get is a headache. Don’t expect the door to open this time when what you have been doing hasn’t changed. Try something different… Perhaps the lock, the knob, another door…

Summary

So try. What could it hurt?

No Comments

Gogs once told me…

Uncategorized

Making it right is sometimes impossible, he said.

Attempting to fix what is broken? Yet, he said, ‘it’ is already broken… The concentric circles have echoed outward from the breaking, and no matter how much we try, the waves can never be put into reverse to make it ‘as if it never happened.’

I said that I was sorry. He smiled that Gogs smile and said, “Aren’t we all?”

He said, “Try to smile.”

To summarize Gogs…

Smile

You will look better, you will feel better, and I hope, at some point, that we can all realize that getting over ‘it’ and forgiving will make us happier, even if it can’t make it ‘as if it never happened.’

Smile.

It really feels better.

We all make mistakes. Me, you, them, us, … I will not define you by your mistake–much less your worst mistake. I hope you extend everyone else the same courtesy I extend you.

You might actually feel better if you let go, smile, and think better of them, of yourself, and of life in general.

Smile.

You are worth it, and, whether you think so now, they are deserve no less than you.

Gogs. He was a smart man.

No Comments

Tonight … Show …

Uncategorized

Conan O’Brien has 32 Million reasons to not like Jay Leno and to retire, for now…

Jay Leno has the Tonight Show back, has little honor, and learned nothing…

We all now see what a professional Johnny Carson was when he let Leno take his spot.

I wish we could have Carson back…

No Comments

Gun “experts” and their thoughts…

Uncategorized

There are too many “experts” on every subject.

In my opinion, there are too many subjective thoughts that enter people’s “objective” opinions.

People might like a particular car and find ways to justify their finding that it is “the best” whatever…

Similar with firearms and Ammunition…

Firearms

Many ‘experts’ talk about the 1911, the Sig, or (insert your firearm choice here)…

The question to ask is are any of them suggestion or opinion that a gun is the best that isn’t their carry gun? If there are ‘many’ experts who disagree on the ‘best’ gun, why do you think there IS a ‘best’ gun?

What is ‘right’ for one person may not be ‘right’ for another even though it ‘not being right’ doesn’t make it ‘wrong’ for anyone else…

What I mean is that IF I like the Sig P239 for my CCW, others may disagree. People can say “It is too heavy” or doesn’t offer enough rounds for the weight/cost. They could opine that the P239 in .40 is too heavy, too expensive, sits too high in the hand, … The Sig P239 may still be the ‘right’ gun for me. I don’t care what everyone else says because I am not everyone else… I don’t have their hands, their stance, their experience, … I have me and mine. As long as I shoot it well, like the gun, and carry it, it IS the best gun for me regardless if everyone else in the world hates the gun in question. Comprende?

If someone else says the best CCW is a 1911 in .45 ACP because… That may be the best gun for them. How does their choice affect me in any way? Because they ‘justify’ their definition of ‘best?’ Give me a break… If placement is all (we will get to this in a minute..), why does their thought on weight, bore-axis, safety placement, decocker location, etc. make any difference? An opinion, theirs and mine, relates to MY thoughts and may not mean anything to anyone else.

Who cares? Why do people need to feel as if they have people agreeing they have made the ‘best’ gun or ‘best’ choice? Be happy with the gun you use and be happy everyone else doesn’t agree–we couldn’t afford that single firearm then could we?

Diversity in thought is a GOOD thing… Try to remember that everyone is entitled to their opinion, BUT that opinion doesn’t make any differing opinion mean that the ‘others’ who share that ‘differing opinion’ are ‘wrong…’ That is hard for people to do–separate the subjective from the objective. However, practice thinking that way helps, so practice…

Ammunition

Chuck Hawks has a site where he discusses guns, bullets (aka, ammunition), and other items. He states

I agree with him when he states

I cannot stress too heavily that the primary determinant of stopping power is BULLET PLACEMENT.

He states a .32 is better if carried and well-placed (head, torso, …) when shot than a .45 ACP that is at home or used to shoot a person in the foot or finger.

I also agree with him when he states

One should carry only hollowpoint ammunition in a defensive handgun.

The reason is that solid metal bullets (ball) often go in and out of the person being shot. The exiting bullet can hit someone else as it can travel quite some distance past the person being shot. You want to stop the lethal threat not create lethal threat to an innocent bystander or neighbor. A hollowpoint, by design, is supposed to expand upon hitting the target–the idea is to enter the body, expand, and stop in the body.

What do I disagree with?

An attacker shot twice with ball ammo will probably have four holes in him rather than two, and is thus in far greater danger of death from blood loss.

Lets think about this for a second… If there are two 8″ holes in a gallon of water, the gallon of water with two holes may empty the gallon of water quicker. If the water in the gallon container is in a sponge, the limiting factor to “bleeding out” may be how fast the blood enters the wound channel (the pipe) rather than the size of the pipe… Remember, blood lose from a shot to the foot may be less than that from a wound to the heart… Placement is king.

We all have our preferences. While I see many carrying 230grain JHP ammunition in their .45 handguns, I don’t think that is ‘better’ than the 185grain JHP. Why? Because statistics show…

Statistics can show anything. If the person threatened with the loss of their life has either ammunition and places their shots well, there is no difference in the outcome–the attacker is stopped. Hell, ammunition in .380 ACP or 9mm would be just as effective wouldn’t it?

Remember, as Chuck states…

I cannot stress too heavily that the primary determinant of stopping power is BULLET PLACEMENT.

Summary

Choice is, by definition, subjective. While statistics may say the X is ‘best,’ I may still chose to use Y. You don’t have to agree, and you don’t have to like it. I’m not saying you are ‘wrong,’ and I would ask why you feel some need to be ‘right,’ although you might not be… Let others be different and do what they want.

I guarantee you aren’t always right. If you think you are, you have already been wrong…

No Comments

Anti-gunners need more critical thinking…

Uncategorized

I was reading up on some handguns to help a friend chose one to buy since they feel threatened when they work in the woods–she felt she was approached by a bunch of wild/feral dogs while she consulted for a client.

I suggested some safety-laden handguns for her to review, and while we were looking on-line, I came upon this analysis of ‘guns vs. no guns.’

I generally laugh when I read a ‘pro-gun’ or an ‘anti-gun’ position that uses ’statistics’ and ‘analysis’ to ‘justify’ their position. People… we can disagree without getting upset or thinking the other person is ‘an idiot.’

I always write so the ‘moderator’ thinks I am irritated with their article. Then I use calm language and facts to one of many solutions that I think might work to solve the perceived problem.

Here is my response…

I am surprised by your response…

“There’s the rub. If they were not to hand, they could not be handled irresponsibily.”

Well… We might as well make the possession of ammonium nitrate, knives, cars, and other items capable of causing individual or massive damage, illegal!

You state this as well…

“This is significant because less than 10% of UK murders involve firearms (60 from roughly 800), while in the USA the figure is around 65-70% (2004: 11,624 from 16,137).”

I hate to mention it, but were all those murders in the UK from rifles? If not, it seems making handguns illegal won’t stop the murders–it just means that the average citizen can’t own a handgun. You see, the criminal doesn’t care what the law says…

What is the murder rate in the UK vs. the USA? Per population? What are the issues involved–crime, hate-group involvement, etc? You can’t simply look at specific rates. At least you focus on murder rate and don’t use the death by firearm that many use–which includes suicides…

I don’t see anyone suggesting we don’t … fly any more since September 11 just because some terrorist used a perfectly good weapon (da plane) in an irresponsible manner.

Your comment:

“I’ll think about that next time I kill someone with a Liquorice Allsort or assault them with a Hamster.”

does not address his comment. Rather than make a subjective statement, address the issue or your argument is very weak.

It would be easier to remove the ability to fly or drive as those ‘rights’ are not even listed in the Constitution.

Look at the Bill of Rights–a national expert pointed this out to me. What do those Amendments guarantee? To whom are those rights guaranteed?

You might find some way to disagree, but those amendments guarantee rights to all citizens rather than to a specific group of people. Even the criminals are entitled to those rights…

Perhaps you should realize that everyone (even the criminal) has rights even if you don’t like them. Instead of trying to remove the rights people have, try to make a solid, valuable, and constructive suggestion on how to reduce violence.

You state:

“This is significant because less than 10% of UK murders involve firearms (60 from roughly 800), while in the USA the figure is around 65-70% (2004: 11,624 from 16,137).”

What I’d like to see is what is the murder rate… Do you think that the murder rate would change if guns/handguns were never available or do you think that the murderer would simply choose a different … weapon? Remember, without the intent to kill with malice aforethought, there is no murder. Whether the person uses a gun, a bat, a car, or other ‘item’ is irrelevant.

Who is committing the murders? What is the breakdown of CCW permit holders vs. non-holders? What percentage or number are under-age?

You shouldn’t say “That person ate meat and he died” to support your vegan cause. People who eat plants die too. What caused the death? What was his genetic predisposition? There are MANY things that affect death, and focusing on generalities is not accurate or helpful in my opinion.

People need to be taught, starting at a young age, how to reason and identify and solve problems. Taking a position and stating that everyone else is wrong is not logical or reasonable — even if you are right (and I don’t think you are).

The difference between those who I know and you is that you appear to want everyone to be/think/live like you–everything else is wrong. I prefer to allow diversity in thought so that people have the freedom to do what they think is right for them without being limited by what I want to see/hear/etc. I don’t guess you suggest my freedom of speech should be limited because you don’t like what I am saying? I certainly support your right to have your position. I think you are mistaken that any inanimate object can be a ‘killer’ just because it is an object.

Certainly, chemicals react with air/water and may explode at a certain point with no human interaction, but I don’t think there is any ‘intent’ to kill in that instance.

What drives a person to kill? I don’t have all those answers, but research on that topic and how to limit disagreements and the feelings/emotions that lead one party or both parties to get so emotional as to feel a need to use violence to ’solve’ the problem would be much more valuable than to simply yell, “you are wrong” while providing bad data that only supports your side.

Unfortunately, nobody doing any of these discussions actually appears to look look at really good data. Do some Google/Yahoo searches for the Texas study that looked at data between CCW permit holders and the average citizen population. What was found?

How can we, as a society, allow differences that make this country great while protecting our safety? Teach psychology starting in elementary school as it deals with bullies, inadequacy, etc. so that people learn why people do what they do and to assist in everyone knowing productive ways to resolve disagreements.

You aren’t going to remove disagreements–my guess is you and your closest friends disagree on certain issues. However, I doubt you end up picking up a book and throwing it at them (or do you?). Perhaps you, like most of us, have tools at your disposal to resolve these emotional issues instead of resorting to violence.

The people we need to worry about are those people who are not capable of rationalizing behavior and a method to solve disagreements.

Funny that you don’t realize that…

If we all could rationalize appropriately so that we don’t let our emotional response get to ‘that point,’ the free availability of guns, poison, etc. wouldn’t be relevant since there would be no violence anyway.

So… What is better? Remove guns and don’t address the underlying issue as you suggest? I’d suggest we start trying to solve the problem with a solution rather than address the ‘runny nose.’ By solving the problem, we remove the deaths and much more than the runny noses…

Of course, that is just my opinion…

No Comments

Shutterfly - The detail is in their license…

Uncategorized

Shuttlefly is one of many on-line photo storage sites. You might be asking why I am writing about them …

If you look at the Terms of Service, you will notice that Section 3 states…

3. Your Submissions

In the event that you post or upload to the Service, or otherwise submit to or through Shutterfly as part of your use of the Service, any materials including, without limitation, photographs and other images, text, graphics, videos, visuals, sounds, data, files, links and other materials (collectively, “Submissions”), you will retain ownership of such Submissions, and you hereby grant us and our designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sublicenseable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, fully paid-up, perpetual, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), create derivative works of, and publicly display and perform (publicly or otherwise) such Submissions, solely in connection with the Service (including without limitation for purposes of promoting the Service). Please note that, while you retain ownership of your Submissions, any template or layout in which you arrange or organize such Submissions through tools and features made available through Shutterfly are not proprietary to you, and can be used by Shutterfly and others for any purposes. You acknowledge and agree that you have no rights in any such template and/or layout, and such template or layout shall be the sole and exclusive property of Shutterfly.

Wow…

So they can use your photos to promote their service without any notice, permission, or payment.

Not a big deal?

I say it is… Why does Shutterfly need a world-wide, non-exclusive right to distribute, to anyone for any purpose, a picture of “Uncle Ed” or anyone else for that matter? They could use a sunset picture free of charge in a world-wide superbowl ad, and the Copyright holder might not even get acknowledged.

Some ’service’ they provide…

I think I’ll look for another on-line storage site. I’ll let you know what I find…

No Comments

No ice in the Arctic?

Critical Thinking, Government, Planetary Temperatures, Social Issues

I have blogged about this before, and I stand by what I have written.

There have been times in the past where there was no ice at the poles.

Now, scientists think we could have a summer with no ice in the Arctic as early as 2030–just 20 years away!

I am not going to say it–because I already have…

The article states

An increasing number of experts feel the North Pole will be ice free in summer by 2030 at the latest, for the first time in a million years.

Please learn about the natural warming and cooling trends on this planet.  Do some research rather than just believe what people say–even it if appears everyone else is saying it…

Remember, “everyone” used to think the earth was flat and that the earth was at the center of the solar system.  How do you know what you “know?”  Is it because you accept what others say or because you thought critically about facts/data and have come to a conclusion?

No Comments

Federal Government can search your e-mail without notice…

Uncategorized

A U.S. District Court has ruled that a person is not entitled to know if the government takes a look at your e-mail.

The opinion, available here, was written by Michael Mosman in a case involving probable cause for a search of an individual’s gmail e-mails in order to search for evidence of a crime. The federal government asked that the person whose e-mails were being searched had no right to kno his e-mails were being searched.

Be worried?

Not really. The federal government still have to have probable cause to get the warrant, but they don’t have to notify you.

Remember, the federal government can search items in a FedEx truck without notifying you–they do have to notify FedEx… Therefore, your ISP or mail provider will get a notice about the federal government searching your e-mail.

The 4th Amendment applies, but it applies to the Service Provider and not to the user who sent/received the e-mail message.

The Judge, in an article on Yahoo News, states

“If a suspect leaves private documents at his mother’s house and the police obtain a warrant to search his mother’s house, they need only provide a copy of the warrant and a receipt to the mother, even though she is not the ‘owner’ of the documents,” he writes.

Whether you like it or not, that makes legal sense…

No Comments
« Older Posts