Nobody is talking about phone conversations now are they dimwit? We're talking about phone numbers. In 1979 the Supreme Court ruled in Smith v Maryland stated;<quoted text>
So, what you're saying is, a person who makes a personal telephone call to another person without including a group of people in the call doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Then what you're saying is there has never been any need for any warrant to have ever been issued allowing the government to tap a phone.
Do you even listen to the horsecrap that comes out of your mouth?
How about you find a ruling by the Supreme Court that states evidence such as a phone conversation obtained without a warrant was illegally obtained and cannot be used. There are, what? A thousand of those cases?
And, you can find another thousand cases where the ruling was the government needs a warrant to read your email.
Any information on your computer is private information. If this weren't true, then, for one thing, 9/11 would never have happened because there would not have been a liberal federal judge to prevent the FBI from looking at Moussaoui's computer and reading the goddam detailed plans of the 9/11 attack, you dumbass.
The 4th Amendment guarantees that the government cannot acquire personal information on individuals without a warrant.
It's that goddam simple.
Read the goddam Constitution, dufus.
" Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746."
No liar, it was not a judge liberal or otherwise that prohibited FBI agents from examining the contents of Moussaoui's computer, it was supervisors in Washington so you'd have to take that up with the Bush DOJ.