Oy and vey. Buckle your seatbelts, boys an' girls. It's gonna be a bumpy ride:

Remember that story we helped explode back in January about how your phone records were for sale online to ANYONE for $100? We even bought General Wesley Clark's cell phone records to prove the point. As a result, there was a big media uproar, the US House passed legislation unanimously, 409-0, to fix the problem, and the Senate was even considering legislation.

Well, today we learn that the federal government and local police were using these questionably-legal online data brokers to get YOUR private phone records without the necessary search warrants.

Yes, the Bush administration once again didn't go to courts of law to get search warrants when it was supposed to.

So let us get this straight. There are companies that are performing completely unethical and largely illegal invasions of privacy. They are admitting to doing these deeds, and they're even admitting that they're pretty much illegal. Our government, established a couple of centuries ago to safeguard the rights of our citizens, is taking advantage of the fruits of these illegal labors to get around the fact that they want to do the same thing themselves, but it's illegal, so they can't...so they're going to the criminals who've already done the illicit legwork and purchasing (often, apparently, gratis) the products of that illegal prying.

Is there any way this could be any more corrupt? Is it possible? Could it be?

While the House passed one bill that would address this issue, a second piece of legislation was due to be debated on the House floor on the same day that US Today revealed that Bush was using AT&T and other phone companies to spy on you. That day the House legislation suddenly disappeared and never was to be seen again. No one knows how it disappeared or who pulled it (though it had to be a Republican, like Denny Hastert, since they control the House). And even more interesting, for some unexplained reason the Senate legislation has gone nowhere. Bill Frist just won't move it.

Well, fuck. They're sitting on the legislation that aims to stop shit like this from going on in the first place.

To add insult to injury: let's just see how much exposure this gets in the mainstream media. We're betting it won't even get as much play as that asinine runaway bride did. Any takers?

Hat tip to Ed.

These people just continue to amaze me with their utter contempt for civil liberties.

This line really jumped out at me: The congressman said laws on the subject are vague: "There's a good chance there are some laws being broken, but it's not really clear precisely which laws."

"not ... precisely which laws"?!? Obviously, that numbnuts has never heard of the 4th Amendment.
I suggest we brand it on his forehead so he'll have no doubt next time.

I've got the branding iron warmed up. One question, though. Should we add a big "Duh!" after the text of the 4th amendment, or is that just implied?

I think the 4th Amendment only applies in a criminal sense to the government and its agents. Corporations and private individuals are free to pry and spy, but if they succeed, they may be liable for civil damages. Thus, newspapers and private investigators can snoop until somebody punches back. This is why companies can do drug tests prior to employment. When the government does drug tests, they have to at least say that the job in question requires sobriety in the interests of public safety. But I'm no lawyer.

-Jason-

I should mention that there is a 4th Amendment issue around government agencies without a warrant purchasing private information from companies who have gathered it. The companies themselves are simply sleazebags, in the absence of legislation to the contrary.

-Jason-

The laws being broken by the data brokers vary widely, and even by their own admission, they are breaking the law...but of course, you're right, Jason — they are not able to violate the Fourth Amendment because it doesn't apply to them. We certainly understand that. Only the government can violate the Fourth Amendment, and they clearly are doing so by obtaining this information without due process. Even if the methods used by the external data brokers were perfectly legal in and of themselves, the government's acquisition and/or use of that information without a warrant would constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

So, yeah — the people who need to be branded with the text of the Fourth Amendment are the various members of the government who "don't know" what laws are being broken by the government.