Rep. Grayson: Let Me Tell The NSA: There Is No Threat To Our Nation When I Call My Mother
from the so-why-do-you-have-the-records? dept
So far, we've seen lots of Congressional Representatives falling over each other to attack Ed Snowden and Glenn Greenwald over the NSA surveillance efforts. A few have raised concerns, but if you want to see an elected official say what's on many of our minds, listen to Rep. Alan Grayson's speech about the NSA scooping up all phone records.Let's be clear about this. This appears to be an order, providing that our telephone companies turn over call records for every single telephone call, regardless of whether it's international or not. Now, if someone had come to me nine days ago and said, 'Congressman Grayson, do you think that the Defense Department is taking records of any telephone call that you make or I make?' I would say 'no, I have no reason to believe that. It would shock me if it were true.' Well it is true and it DOES SHOCK ME. Why should we have our personal telephone records, the records of who we call, when speak to them, how long we're talking... why should we have that turned over to the Defense Department?It goes on, in much greater detail about why this is such a problem. He points out that the order "clearly violates the 4th Amendment," which is the first time I've seen a politician finally admit that. He highlights that there's no probable cause and no particularity, as required by the 4th Amendment. And, for those who immediately, like rote, spout out Smith v. Maryland and the third party doctrine, Grayson responds to that as well, calling those who make that argument a "farce," noting the differences in that case, which involved seizing a single record once, not all records all the time.
What possible rationale could there be for that?
Well, I'll tell you what I think their rationale would be: "because somehow that makes us safer." Well, let me say to the NSA and the Defense Department: there is no threat to America when I speak to my mother.
Towards the end of his speech, he notes that the intelligence agencies have a long history of abusing surveillance:
You know, this is not the first time we've had this problem. This is not the first time that the government has entered into surveillance on people without probable cause. Many of us remember that there was FBI surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, including wiretapping and bugging his personal conversations. I thought -- perhaps naively -- that we'd moved beyond that. And, in some sense, we have moved beyond that. Because now, they're doing it to everyone.As he concludes: "this has gone way too far."
One could well say that we are reaching the point where Uncle Sam is Big Brother.
...though its proponents depict this is American as apple spy (sic?), this program is an anti-American program. We are not North Koreans. We don't live in Nazi Germany. We are Americans and we are human beings. And we deserve to have our privacy respected. I have no way to call my mother except to employ the services of Verizon or AT&T or some other phone company... that doesn't mean that it's okay with me for the government -- and specifically the Department of Defense -- to be getting information of every phone call I make to her. It's not okay with me.... and I know for most of the people listening today, it's not okay with you either.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 4th amendment, alan grayson, constitutionality, nsa, nsa surveillance, privacy
Companies: verizon
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
All that and...
If anything, there should be an open warrant for all critter communications. That might solve a few problems in the world.
It says a lot about Techdirt's morals when you are siding with these guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All that and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: All that and...
It's like taken lessons in honest from Kim Dotcom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All that and...
As in, if even scum is calling you creepy there's something horribly wrong with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: All that and...
Or from you, nameless one.
Apparently, it has yet to occur to you that some small spark of humanity might yet exist within that tattered cesspool known as Congress. Faint, no doubt, but there. Wyden and Udall are other examples. A pity we have so few of them, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: All that and...
I suspect the guys like Wyden who whine the loudest probably have the biggest closets, and one day the door will burst open and you will be shocked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: All that and...
Most politicians laugh at the letters they receive if they even read them at all, I saw some of them saying out loud how gullible the public is, they believe only them know better and everybody else is stupid, kind of like you.
They all end up the same, scorned and forgotten.
Do we really need a central government?
Are there no other ways to create thriving societies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All that and...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Outraged too late
Always has been, and will be.
That being the point, why does the military need so much information from domestic sources?
It is specifically forbidden to gather domestic intelligence..and this is exactly what they've been doing, using the cover of "security".
Whoops..gotta check that paranoia nerve, it's acting up again..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice
About time someone said that where him and his mother are sure to make headlines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nice
You never know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
4th Amendment
If not, it's grounds for the people to Impeach all of Congress for violating their oaths' to uphold the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 4th Amendment
most of congress (ie the majority) believe and accept it is both legal, and constitutional.
Prevent this from happening again, don't you mean STILL and will continue, regardless of your tin foil hat extremists views.
It must really piss you off living in a democratic society, where the majority rules, when you are in the minority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 4th Amendment
If the majority wants this kind of widespread and warrantless data snooping to be legal, then they can very well go ahead and pass a new amendment to the Constitution making it so. Until then, it is in clear violation of the 4th Amendment, and needs to stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 4th Amendment
It seems that to this point, the courts have disagreed. While they haven't ruled on the whole ball of wax as one big thing, there are clearly enough judgements that show that this information is something law enforcement can pick up, collect, acquire... whatever you want to call it.
Perhaps if you want to expand the 4th amendment to cover all of your public actions, you might want to push for an amendment to the constitution. Until then, pay attention to the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 4th Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 4th Amendment
If anyone's taking these exposed programs either at face value or as the total sum you're delusional at best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 4th Amendment
Government/Corporate snooping upon private communications between members of the general public
vs
General public taking pictures/video in public of government/corporation activities
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 4th Amendment
Actually, there is not a clear-cut trend with the courts on this sort of thing. In the non-classified cases, sometimes the courts have ruled it's OK, and sometimes not, depending on the specific circumstances. They have not given a blanket "this is just fine" kind of ruling ever.
In the classified cases, it's a single court that makes rulings we can't see, on the basis of legal thought that we can't know. There is no reason to take that seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 4th Amendment
Asking for data on everyone who uses Version , AT&T or any other phone company does not meet that high bar. Not getting a warrant for each individual explaining why you need their data is, therefore, against the Constitution, & therefore against the Law.
I have no problem if the FBI gets a warrant to investigate a suspect. I do have a problem w/ the NSA trying to get metadata on the whole country w/o the legally required SPECIFIC warrants.
Also being overlooked is the 9th Amendment, guaranteeing us unspecified rights not covered by the other Amendments. Our right to privacy would be under that. The 9th Amendment was put there to protect rights the Founders couldn't foresee or didn't think of when they were drafting the Constitution.
The NSA is also violating the 5th Amendment by bypassing Due Process.
The NSA has overstepped it's authority, which is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
So, really, w/o getting into them doing the FBI's job (Domestic law enforcement), which they're banned from doing (being they're restricted to Foreign Intelligence), they've violated 1/2 the Amendments to the Constitution. & you're OK w/ that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 4th Amendment
You ALMOST got it, but you missed the point. The 4th amendment applies in specific circumstances. However, it does not preclude the large scale collection of third party material, where no privacy exists. Essentially, it's the "car on a public road" thing. The police can (and in some places do) note the license plate of every car as it goes past a certain point every day. There is no 4th amendment requirement to do this.
Further, all of those pay for use roads, such as EZ pass, those are all tracking your movement. Again, all of that information is out there.
The problem with your argument is that at each step, you get more and more wrong. You are piling amendments on amendments and entirely missing the point.
5th? Where is the due process, if they are not specifically investigating anyone in particular? Should they read the rights to the entire country? Who's due process is blocked?
10th? Snore.
9th? the sound of desperations.
Keith, I would say that since you missed the main point (third party data) the rest of your rant is just that, a rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 4th Amendment
The Constitution does not grant you rights as a citizen; rather, it imposes limitations upon the government so that your rights may not be encroached upon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 4th Amendment
I have to be reading your comment wrong, as you seem to be saying 'Gather data on one person, warrant required. Do the same thing on everyone, no warrant needed', which is so insanely wrong I can't quite put it into words.
That would be like saying that while police would need a warrant to search one person's house for evidence of a crime they are investigating, it would be perfectly fine for them to do the same thing, without a warrant, to an entire neighborhood, as they aren't targeting anyone in particular.
Also, your police analogy is more than a little off, as the NSA's actions is less like writing down every license plate number, and more like searching every car that going past, 'just in case'. A license plate number is in plain view, anyone can see it without any extra effort, so it is indeed public, but the details of a call, including who was called, how long it lasted, and so on, is anything but public, since it requires a good deal of effort to 'see' that extra data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FISA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FISA
"Big boss man allowed to watch you according to big law man!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FISA
There will be no explanations from the executive branch that do not consist of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FISA
...or the legislative and judicial branches, for that matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change the subject.?
There are a lot of reasons to either support or not these rebels. On the pro side is in unequal balance of heavy artillery, aircraft of war, and chemical weapons. On the minus side are questions of who are other possible supporters of either side? Questions that are currently unanswerable, and any wrong decision here may lead to some very serious intended or not consequences.
So, other than changing the national conversation, what is in the timing of this?
How does one go about charging all three branches of the government with treason for failure to uphold their oaths of office? I will look tomorrow, but I am fairly certain that every one of them talks about upholding the constitution, not 'protecting' the population.
What is so hard about that? All the tap dancing around this is incredible. What is so hard about interpreting those words? The words have been around since 1789 and we are still trying to figure out what they mean?
I will wager several Internets that one could get a great interpretation of these words from a (well given the school system as envisioned by George Bush, maybe not any) sixth grade classroom.
Why are all these 'well' educated people (looking at our nine black robed morons in a hurry here as well) still discussing what it means?
What really is their agenda? American data to the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT??????
I expect a whole lot more tap dancing. I really do wish they could actually dance. This is painful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change the subject.?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#United_States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change the subject.?
or the administration is just getting on with the job, and leaving the crazed cult fringe dwellers to continue crying and whining about something the MAJORITY of Americans agree with and accept.
It's only Masnick and his fellow cultists working hard for click bait who cannot and will not ever change their narrow, extremist mindset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change the subject.?
Someone should tell McCain and the other war-happy politicians that if they want to go help Syria's Al Qaeda rebel forces so badly to go put on their combat gear and we'll dump them on the front lines. What the hell is our government doing supporting a friggin' Al Qaeda insurgency anyway? Whatever goes on in Syria is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Change the subject.?
I can just imagine you on the street corner yelling..
"SOMEONE SHOULD TELL MCCAIN AND THE OTHER WAR-HAPPY POLITICANS .... and so on.. "what the HELL is our Government doing supporting a friggin Al Qaeda insurgency, "
Got right into the feel of it there, LOL
love a good crazed rant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Change the subject.?
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great to know, but SO WHAT, and who's word do we have for that ?
So according to this idiot, if you simply tell the security services you are no threat that is somehow supposed to prove you are no threat ?
I am also quite sure the NSA would also be able to work that out, even without ANY human intervention.
It's the 'I am not a criminal because I say so defence". LOL
All terrorist group be informed, if you put your headquarters in your mothers name, you are exempt from investigations. Genius .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You miss the point of his statement completely.
There are BILLIONS of calls, every day by millions of Americans, BILLIONS of texts every day, etc by Americans. In WHAT way does it make sense to monitor ALL of that?!
So according to this idiot, if you simply tell the security services you are no threat that is somehow supposed to prove you are no threat?
Ever hear of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"? You must not have. Allow me to explain then. You could be accused of a crime or someone could think you're a threat, but until they prove it or you do something to prove it, they can't stop you from doing what you're doing so long as you're not endangering lives or putting others at risk.
See, some of us, apparently not you, were brought up under the idea of Innocent Until Proven Guilty when it comes to law enforcement in America.
What the NSA is doing is going "everyone's guilty unless they can prove their innocence".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ever hear of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty"?
yes, but what does that have to do with anything, being monitored is not a conviction of guilt..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe not, but the agent knocking at your door knows where you spend the nights you are not at home, and the videos you downloaded from the Internet. A government agent wouldn't stoop to blackmail... would they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Laws them become selective, you just chose to enforce the law on certain groups and leave others alone, that is discriminatory and the basis for an undemocratic regime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, that's not what he said, and only a complete moron could possibly interpret it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
then why are there not billions of people being arrested and charged for something ???
clearly if you are innocent, it makes no difference if you are monitored or not.
Being monitored, is not charging or conviction you of anything..
me thinks you don't understand much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you live in America you can have both.. perfect for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes it does. You seem to have no idea what the government can do with that data. Even if you're innocent, the government can go "well, this data indicates that he was here at the time, so, he's guilty."
Being monitored, is not charging or conviction you of anything..
If that's the case, why are they monitoring me like this? Shouldn't I have a right to privacy?
me thinks you don't understand much.
I understand WAYYY too much. In EVERY society that has EVER come before our current ones, if people are monitored heavily, it doesn't take long for everything to be trampled on and crushed by an oppressive government. For example, look at China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Eastern Europe when the USSR had control of it.
Do you REALLY want the U.S. to go down that route?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There aren't billions of Americans. More like close to 400 million. Well ok, some of them are not technically Americans but you get the drift.
"clearly if you are innocent, it makes no difference if you are monitored or not."
Actually, yeah, it does. It makes a huge difference. Since when did our private lives become the government's business? We have an expectation to privacy; that includes our communications. If it's not such a big deal then would the government mind if we snooped in on all of their conversations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Interestingly enough, you've just proven as much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is why programs for early release are so popular nowadays.
You seem to mistake control with justice, the reason to keep an eye on everybody is to target the dissent and nip it at its bud before in can grow into something meaningful at least that is the theory, the problem is that to do that you have to annoy a large number of people and eventually organic movements start to form, just like pirates spring everywhere.
Power get some drunk.
Are you sure you never broke a law? anywhere?
We should look at your connections, I am sure there is something bad in there somewhere that somebody can spin it to make look naughty enough to send in the SWAT teams.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
US history repeatedly and frequently demonstrates that this statement is false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
OK off you go then, enjoy your new life.. (for a short time)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Fact is, you can't stop every scary thing from happening out there, you don't need to take away freedoms and liberties to give people a false sense of security, because you can't guarantee it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The terrorists have successfully terrorized the US, to the extent that the government are using the almost non-existent threat to take an increasingly totalitarian control of the population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Statistics wont make you any less dead if you are !!
No statistically you are far more likely to be killed by an American exercising his constitutional right to own a gun.
In fact if you own a gun, statistically most likely going to kill yourself with it.
But terrorists goals are to instil terror, people feel fear of terrorists actions, terrorists kill to create terror.
You don't have to be killed by a terrorist to experience a terror from their actions.
You said it yourself, so you know I am right!
The terrorists have successfully terrorized the US
Again, I love it when you debunk your own argument in the same post, but it does make it far to easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The real terrorists, as far as many people are concerned, is the U.S. government.
Bin Laden said it best...
"I no longer have to do anything. The U.S. will destroy itself with its own policies from here on out."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you are that much of of a coward, how is it that you are willing to travel by car? You are many orders of magnitude more likely to die doing that than by being murdered, whether through terrorism or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't live my life based on the statistical probability of the method of my death!!! Do you?
I also understand that "the authorities" seek to minimise possible deaths whenever possible, they for example legislate for seat belts, and air-bags, and create laws regarding how fast you can travel, and requirements that you are sober and so on.
Lots of people drown so they create life guards to reduce the threat, some people die from illness, so they create hospitals and medical science.
Some people die from acts of terror, to they take action to reduce that threat (some would say overreaction as opposed to action) but measures are taken in all aspects of life to sustain life and the quality of life.
You don't mind being under surveillance when you are the beach by life guards, because you know they are there to watch over you and protect you.
It's the same mindset with the NSA, "ya gotta do what ya gotta do".
What if only 10 people world wide died from a particular illness, would you say they are statistically insignificant and ignore the condition and not find ways to cure it ??
do you mind being under surveillance if you are drowning and being carried out to sea in a rip ? But PRIVACY !!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But you do. You made the calculation that the risk of dying at the hands of terrorists was worth sacrificing some freedom for.
Bad analogy. If I did mind being surveilled by life guards (and I know people who do), I can always go to a different beach that has no life guards. I can't avoid NSA surveillance, though, without dropping out of society entirely.
No, but I would absolutely object to being required to pay a heavy price for them to find a cure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I worked out the reduction of risk from terrorist damage is worth having NSA perform the same function your police routinely do every day thousands of times a day.
That is watch the population in specific situations to ensure less crime going undetected.
Just like the cop on the side of the road watching for speeding drivers, or take plate numbers, and checking rego and insurance.
Just like banks reporting large and unusual transactions to the police.
and just like phone companies reporting unusual 'activity' in regards to phone usage, and internet usage.
and just like I accept that when I do a Google search I know my search details are not only recorded but that information then is provided to other companies.
And just as I know the police watching cars for illegal activity is perfectly acceptable in a society.
I and it appears most of the American population fully understand why this is something worth doing, and worth doing properly.
It's legal, ethical, typical, not unique, constitutional and even desirable.
We all also know Masnick is only harping on about this because it's 'money in the bank' for him.
And, it beats the shit out of having to do a real job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are you a freetard? go work for your own money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you admit that you're doing a calculation. That's all I was saying. BTW, the local police to not do this same thing every day, thousands of times a day.
We disagree. The two things are not even close to being comparable.
No, more like if the banks were reporting every transaction. Which they don't do.
The NSA revelation indicates that the phone companies are reporting every usage, not just unusual sorts. that's the problem.
Not at all like that, since you can completely avoid that surveillance.
It's legal, ethical, typical, not unique, constitutional and even desirable.
It may be legal, but I don't agree that it's ethical,typical, constitutional, and especially that it's desirable.
It's the opposite of desirable. It's extremely dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
NSA on the other hand will keep a record of what numbers your phone called, where the phones were, and for how long they were connected. Put some 'names' behind those numbers and they can identify probable medical problems, romantic affairs etc. They can also identify the organizers and facilitators in political and protest movements.
Unless you build a relationship with them, the lifeguards no very little about you. On the other hand NSA may build up quite a picture of what you are doing.
Unless you specifically tell them, the life guard will have no idea whether or not you have a medical issue, or are carrying on an affair. he NSA on the other hand can work out these things if they take an interest in you for any reason, which may include identifying you as a protest movement organizer from your phone records.
Therefore the life guard is no threat to your privacy, but the NSA records are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny, that is exactly what happens in real life, you just let people die, you don't divert resources from cancer research to save 10 people and if you can after than you go try to save the others.
You don't carpet bomb an entire country to kill some terrorists, you don't close down an entire city to get one criminal.
And you don't fucking throw out the constitution because it doesn't align with your mistaken idea of security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Willy E. Coyotte?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you don't fucking throw out the constitution because it doesn't align with your mistaken idea of security.
I think you're mistaken about a couple of those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do and so do you. You make decisions like that every day without even thinking about it. If you step in front of an approaching truck you have a high statistical probability of dying, so you decide to wait 'til it's passed and there's a safe gap in traffic. You probably make multiple such decisions daily.
The chances of dying in a terrorist attack play practically no part in my daily decision making, because there is practically zero chance of it happening.
"You don't mind being under surveillance when you are the beach by life guards, because you know they are there to watch over you and protect you."
This ridiculous comparison proves you're either not smart enough or not honest enough to play a meaningful part in this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
and yet the NSA are tracking millions of calls every day, then there should be millions of convictions, or at least millions of charges.
If you call is tracked (not even listened to), you are not guilty of anything, YOU ARE INNOCENT, not even if you make a million calls a day to Yemen are you even found guilty, you are innocent, UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY !!!!
Go figure, you shoot down your own argument, well done..
Even with probably cause, if they don't find anything proving your guilt you are not charged and not found guilty.
Your argument, is prove that you are innocent until proven guilty, with millions of examples that you alluded to.
A police officer see's you walk out of a crack house, they have probable cause that you purchased drugs, they detain you and search you, they find NO DRUGS, they have no evidence that you purchased drugs, they only though you might of because where you just were.
You are not arrested or charged because they had probably cause, but if they had probably cause (you came out of the crack house) and when they detained and searched you they found drugs.
They would take that case to a court who would look at the fact you had drugs on you and convict you, the court cannot convict you on the basis of probable cause along.
NSA has probably cause that if you call specific people or places that you may be engaging in terrorism. But they cannot charge you or convict you based on that suspicion, they can based on that probable cause conduct further investigation to determine if you were ringing up your mom or your terrorist cell leader.
That still would not be enough to charge you, or convict you, they would have to 'prove beyond reasonable doubt' that you were engaging in terrorist activities.
But it appears you dullards cannot work that out, speaks far more about your paranoia and your fundamental lack of education than your activities, or any surveillance you might be under.
IF you drive a car, a police office might observe you, (Government surveillance !!) if he has probable cause to believe you are breaking a law, he may pull you over and ask you for your license, insurance and registration!!
But if you are driving your car, and a law abiding, you can still be watched, and pulled over, but once the police determines you are acting legally, he lets you go.
So in your world (the dream one), you think if a cop looks at you, you are therefore guilty of something ?
Oh wait, most of your country understands this simple fact, and therefore the clear majority agree that probably cause is not a finding of guilt, and surveillance is not a finding of guilt, most Americans (except masnick and his cult followers) understand reality, and have at least a basic understanding of the laws.
Not to mention some common sense, which also seems deeply lacking on TD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"So in your world (the dream one), you think if a cop looks at you, you are therefore guilty of something?"
Newsflash! Cops aren't looking for guilty or innocent people, that's for the courts to decide, they're looking for suspects to arrest when looking for clues to a crime.
So, yes, if a cop looks at you for more than a second, you can probably think that they think you're guilty of something.
You might want to understand why common advice when dealing with cops is "don't say anything and ask for a lawyer, no matter what".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
that's funny, in so many ways, cops ARE looking for guilty people, people they SUSPECT of some breach of the law, they do that by first looking at EVERYONE.
You are right a police man cannot determine guild, he can only suspect and allege a crime, that is why he ready a Miranda rights to the suspect upon arrest on SUSPICIAN of a crime.
Of course, for things like speeding, the police is able to make a judgment and issue a punishment on the spot, so often he can find someone guilty or not.
But he watches everyone, and picks out the ones he suspects.
Don't know a lot about your legal system do you, (and you live there !!!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you should find out the average number of false arrests that police go through during the course of an investigation for people they think are guilty of a crime sometime.
Maybe you should look up the number of people who get tossed in prison because they were pressured into talking by the police even though they committed no crime.
Or maybe, just maybe...
You should stop running your mouth off when you understand nothing. You're like the spectator at a car accident who thinks the cars are going to explode because they crashed into each other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Katz v. United States (1967)
United States v. Jones (2012)
Now fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The police can not do this, ever. The police can issue a traffic ticket -- which is nothing but an accusation. If you think it's mistaken, you can go to court and have a judge rule. The cops do not issue a judgment or punishment "on the spot" or ever (unless the cops are breaking the law).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Truer words have never been spoken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's a point where it's too far. If I wasn't a US citizen I'd probably be even more pissed. Companies & ISPs should be required to respect their privacy policy regardless of what the government wants from them. Real criminals know how to use encryption anyway, so it's irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
those guys got 3 easy steps going...
1) Shoot at the offender.
2) Execute the offender thoroughly
3) and Finally ask question after the offender is unable to prove he's innocent because the poor soul is IN jail sentence already. *cue your public record is stained by this*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's a funny thing about our rights in the USA. There is no such thing as being guilty without a trial, even when the spies think we are guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so North Koreans and Germans are NOT HUMAN ??
Where is Nazi Germany again ??
I tried to look up Nazi Germany on Google maps and I could not find it !!!
quite a disgusting and racist comment. So accordingly Masnick accepts him as a hero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How old are you anyway? Or maybe you're IQ is too low to understand the context of his comment?
Then again... When you say stuff like this...
I tried to look up Nazi Germany on Google maps and I could not find it!!!
It pretty much tells me that you're a complete buffoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would guess so are you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Try finding the USSR or Prussia while you're at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
exactly my POINT!!!!
I guess you simply DONT GET IT, it's ok, it will come to you in time.. probably.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What point?
All you've proven is that you don't understand what he was talking about.
Anyone with more than 3 brain cells knows about Nazi Germany or the USSR. Prussia's quite a bit less known.
I guess you simply DONT GET IT, it's ok, it will come to you in time.. probably.
You don't get it, you never have, you never will. You're obviously lacking in brain power. Here's a piece of advice for you. Stop drinking alcohol. You can't afford to lose anymore brain cells.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I assume to do know none of those places exist, sure they used to exist, so for example, Nazi Germany is a WHEN, not a where. as is Prussia and USSR.
they do not exist now.
So I was alluding to the fact that Nazi German does not exist, by saying "WHERE IS IT" , "I tried to find it on Google maps".
I forgot, Americans don't get sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you're just bad at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loses his seat in the eighth Florida congressional district so me moves down the street and wins in the 9Th.
It just shows you he's a guy that just wants the perks of congress more than serving the people who put him in congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"we are Americans, we are human"
(not like those North Koreans, or Germans !!!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's take this a step further:
What if you're guilty of something, and they need to know what it is you can be charged with?
Monitoring your actions is the first step to being investigated for a crime that you might have committed, whether or not you are aware of it.
You know, like a secret law that you didn't know you were breaking.
Lots of those on the books.
Just because you think you're innocent doesn't mean you actually are and they'll have all the proof in the world to back up any charges they care to bring against you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if you're guilty of something"
you mean what if you committed a crime ?, then I would expect you would be charged for the crime you committed.
what is the point of your argument ?
"and they need to know what it is you can be charged with? "
they could probably work out what to charge you with based on the crime you committed. It's generally how it works..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, that makes great sense.. !!!!!
go back to your facebook page and update it showing the last time you took a dump... as well.
but make sure you get enraged if you have to show what phone numbers you called, and how long you talked for !!!!.
but make sure you credit reporting database is correct, and let everyone know if you are a bad debtor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, you really have your priorities right !!!! for sure !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My tax return certainly does not have anything close to the full details of my spending habits. Also, my tax return is far more protected and private than my phone calls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress and this whole NSA thing
I simply do not understand the whole if you aren't guilty then you have nothing to fear attitude. With more federal regulations than even the government knows about, if anyone wants to arrest and convict you, you will be arrested and convicted.
It WILL happen that some ex husband, ex boyfriend, obsessed fan, even obsessed girlfriend or something will abuse this data to hurt or even kill some innocent, well mostly innocent, since nobody is innocent according to this way of thinking, person.
It is there because the security nerds at the NSA have a wet dream every time they think about "having" all that data.
It's unconstitutional. It may take a tragedy and a change in the constitution to do it but it is against the character of our country to gather information like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congress and this whole NSA thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Congress and this whole NSA thing
Even more effectively, all they have to do is remove the legal authorization to do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Congress and this whole NSA thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Congress and this whole NSA thing
If, however, they have no legal authorization, then the whole thing can be limited through court and/or congressional action. Much like the Church Hearings the last time that this sort of thing got out of control.
You're right, though, that in the long run they will find a way regardless, and we'll have to keep having this fight over and over, forever.
This is a big part of the saying "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idle/indolent threats to the nation's "fictional intel"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to get the point
"they could probably work out what to charge you with based on the crime you committed. It's generally how it works.."
Do you understand the basis for being charged with a crime? It's called "probable cause", and it is the very first step in a criminal case.
What if: you break a 'supersecret' law that you had no idea that you had broken? What if the government makes one up just to suit themselves? What if you don't even realize you're breaking it at the time they 'catch' you doing it?
That's what happens when you have some secret law in place to allow them to get all of the information available without your knowledge.
For starters, let's try the Bill of Rights for an answer to one question:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Notice the words "Due process of law". Seems to be a step missing in this logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not to get the point
For you to be charged, you need far more than probably cause, you need evidence (that might be the result of a search based on probably cause).
Then once evidence is acquired, it is then up to a court to consider that evidence and convict you.
You are NEVER charged on "probable cause". Please oh please learn about your legal system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not to get the point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130311/11092522281/artists-sampled-without-permissio n-harlem-shake-song-demand-to-get-paid.shtml#c326
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
what language did Timothy McVey speak ??
what language do you think the person who lived in the US and took flying lessons in the US speak, you know, the guy who flew a jet into the Trade Centre ?
Apart from that, and most many other examples, they speak English (or American, :))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you want to stop foreign terrorists it's helpful to speak foreign languages. Oh, sure, those terrorists may speak English in addition to their foreign language but that's not to say they would be plotting their terrorist attacks in English.
A: It's easier for them to use their native language
B: It's more difficult to get spied on when using their native language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And they spoke English !! go figure..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: English
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
While discussing their plot between themselves? No, not likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, if you work intelligence you should speak a second language fluently or get fired
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What language did the highway sniper speak ?
What language did the wall street bomber speak ?
what language did the Boston bombers speak ?
What language did the Anthrax letter sender speak ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The wall street bombings were never solved, though believed to be Italian in origin.
No, not all terrorists are foreigners, and that's not what I'm claiming. But many are and they speak foreign languages and so being able to speak those languages should be a requirement to work for intelligence. Yet no one working for our lazy worthless overpaid government can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
English speaking foreigners at that, where are you from originally ??
Certainly not mainland USA !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Notice, U.S. CITIZEN !!!! there at all ?? hmmmm ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Milk it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As I predicted, which was so easy to do given how predictable Mike is, Mike DOES think it violates the Fourth Amendment, and he was just waiting for someone to say something plausible to that effect so that he could latch on to it and run with it. Mikey, let's hash out your newly-found theory that Smith v. Maryland doesn't apply. I know you're such an evidence-based guy that you've clearly done your research and obviously you must be fully prepared to defend your argument that this is unconstitutional. Right? I'll be here if you man up and want to discuss the merits of your claim. (We all know you don't, because you're a total fake that works backwards and runs from opposition. You're so predictable that I only need to know one or two things about a story before I know what your take will be. Since you start with your conclusions, it's quite simple to predict what you'll say. To you, the facts are law are inconsequential.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, I'm just oh so curious about this new theory you've latched onto. I've just reread Smith v. Maryland, and I don't see any language that supports your newly-found-and-latched-onto view that the Court's reasoning there is limited to a "single record once." Where are you getting that limitation from Smith?
The Court said: "Telephone users, in sum, typically know that they must convey numerical information to the phone company; that the phone company has facilities for recording this information; and that the phone company does in fact record this information for a variety of legitimate business purposes." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 743 (1979). How is that limited to a "single record once"?
I know you hate faith-based assertions and are yourself an evidence-based man, so what evidence do you have to distinguish Smith? What language in Smith shows that its holding is limited in the way you say it is? Do you have language from subsequent cases that provide this limitation? I can't wait to see your evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good luck
Masnick does not have an opinion, that at least is clear, Masnick will only leach off others who have an opion, you cant expect him to argue the case for someone else's opinion, and he does not appear to have an opinion of his own.
So good luck with that, Masnick has to first form an opinion before he can argue one.. Or you can wait until he google's something he thinks will get some click bait, or ask him fried Tim to form an opinion for him.
It must be a sad life being so outraged all the time, and never understanding why !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good luck
Both of you are a disgrace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good luck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good luck
Think: who would waste their time defending the erosion of our civil liberties beside those who seek to gain from our loss?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good luck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good luck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good luck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good luck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good luck
or watching him try to think on his feet in a live interview, having to give his own opinions, instead of Googling someone else's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess, then this is ok because there IS a cause, and how do you know if there is or is not a 'cause' unless you look and see ?
A police officer monitors traffic with a cause, his cause if to catch people exceeding the speed limit, that does not mean everyone he monitors is exceeding the speed, but if he does not monitor at all, the people who are speeding will continue to speed, and possibly the people not speeding with decide they will speed.
Monitoring you is not finding you guilty, in fact monitoring you if you are innocent confirms that fact.
As an added bonus, knowing your speed is monitored, will stop a lot of people from not speeding, when they would possibly speed if they were not monitored.
I know you find that hard to comprehend, but given enough time, you might be able to work it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, you wouldn't mind the police just coming into your house/apartment/hotel room, ransaking it while looking for drugs/guns/etc and then taking your computer, cell phone or video game system away when they're done because they don't know if there is a 'cause' to look at you unless they look and see then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can go there and watch it by yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can go there and watch it by yourself."
what question is that ??
"You didn't answer the question."
You didn't ask one !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which tells me that you wouldn't be okay with that.
BTW, did you miss the article where the police held two people, illegally, without warrants, for hours, in their homes, to get their cell phones because they recorded the police beating a man to death?
Or the countless other articles about the police arresting people for minor things? How about the articles about how the boarder patrol confiscates people's laptops and cell phones for no reason other than they can?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not only are your opinions divisive and antagonistic but, based on the doctrines of this country, you seem to be a champion of a power structure that would find its roots in East Germany.
You're an authoritarian schmuck and you're rendering an argument based on fallacies, inaccuracies and delusions that your argument could even remotely touch upon the reality of the collections of the near-totality of this country's communications, transactions, whereabouts, dealings and politics.
In other words your pedantic drivel could only be sourced from a complete fucking moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Supreme Court in Smith v. Maryland said that once you give information to a third party, in that case, in that case, the phone numbers you're dialing to your phone company, then you have no legitimate expectation of privacy in that information and IT'S NOT EVEN A SEARCH for the cops to obtain it. Thus, the Fourth Amendment isn't even implicated because IT"S NOT A SEARCH, and the Amendment only applies to searches, as you can "comprehend" from the "plain text" of it.
ou're an authoritarian schmuck and you're rendering an argument based on fallacies, inaccuracies and delusions that your argument could even remotely touch upon the reality of the collections of the near-totality of this country's communications, transactions, whereabouts, dealings and politics.
No, I'm describing the actual law. I'm not trying to pass off my dream of what the law should be as being the actual law, as Pirate Mikey likes to do. I'm dealing with the reality of the actual law. I don't even disagree that it might be prudent to reconsider the third-party doctrine, but that doesn't change the fact that it is currently the actual law. I know such nuanced thinking is lost on your braindead Mike fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
100% of phone records for the entire population including public and private business, non-profit and, basically, every phone.
If you're really OK with that then good on you, stand up for it, but don't offer it up as lawful because, quite frankly, it hasn't been tested and, quite assuredly, we don't know the half of it. I will, of course, reserve the right to be of the opinion that you're a fucking idiot for lending even the slightest credence to the argument that it is acceptable while, of course, recognizing it, as thinly stretched as it is, as a valid argument much less a legal one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
love your way with words
100% of the ENTIRE population INCLUDING, basically EVERY PHONE.
how many ??????
"but don't offer it up as lawful because, quite frankly, it hasn't been tested "
oh but it has been tested, frankly..
do you notice how you say the same thing over and over again ??? it's called ranting !!!
"for lending even the slightest credence to the argument that it is acceptable while, of course, recognizing it, as thinly stretched as it is, as a valid argument much less a legal one."
I'm glad you said that was your opinion, correct or incorrect (incorrect in this case) it's something you are at least entitled too.
I suppose you can say it's never been tested in Court if you ignore when it has been tested. Ignorance is an excuse for opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's not what "with cause" means. A police officer watches traffic without cause. However, there is no problem with him sitting in a public place watching things, any more than there would be a problem if you or I do it.
If, however, he's recording all the license plate numbers that go by and entering them into a massive database that gets combined with other databases, then there's a pretty huge problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry to break your pink glasses dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good to know you are an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jun 15th, 2013 @ 7:50am
Cops monitoring traffic has some very good reasons behind it, (multi ton hunks of metal moving at high velocities) Sure, electrons move pretty fast, but a "traffic collision" on the intarwebz is totally non-fatal. and lost packets aren't cause for a search party either.
You're silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so watching a group of cars to see if some of them are speeding is discriminating against those who are not speeding ??? what a sad world you live in, must really suck to be you..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know it's hard for you to rub the few brain cells you have together, but try to think.
If there are 10 people speeding down the road and 9 of them are white and the cops don't pull them over, but the 10th one is, say, Hispanic and the cops pull THEM over but ignore everyone else who speeds, THAT is what was being said.
Honestly, it's people like you that should be put on the first rocket to Mars so we don't have to deal with you here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you fail in your argument, censor.. thanks for the promotion of my post.. Now I know it will be read..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dumbass
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
it's not censorship it's promotion !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would be pure coincidence if they delayed you for past speeding offenses and caused you to a miss a flight when you were on route to speak to a protest meeting. The police would not be trying to disrupt such meetings would they?
The latter scenario is the big problem with searchable data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Specifically the 4th amendment. So even if it saves lives, it shows the government does not care about the laws. Even if people are right that the 4th amendment no longer makes sense, amend the constitution, don't just start ignoring parts of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
you would have to first understand the Constitution before you are able to make that claim, and clearly you don't..
but fortunately, and constitution provided for that, the constitution created the Supreme Court specifically to interpret the constitution, that court is from the constitution, and it determines what is constitutional or not, (as provided for in the constitution), so what the Supreme Courts decide is constitutional is therefore Constitutional, why ???? because the constitution says so.
In the beginning, the constitution said, "let there be a supreme court, and let that Court interpret the constitution" The Constitution looked upon it's creation, and it was good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is an unalienable right based upon nothing more than human existence itself:
To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually I think that first and foremost he needs to recognize privacy, or some reasonable semblance thereof, is an unalienable right
Sorry to upset you, but privacy is NOT an unalienable right at all, not according to the constitution, or the constitutionally appointed Supreme Court, or by State legislation or federal legislation.
Don't believe me, show me the word PRIVACY in the fourth amendment or the bill of rights ??
BILL OF RIGHTS - Fourth Amendment:
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
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.
Can you see "privacy" there at all, or unalienable ?
Oh I see, how you put (privacy) on the end, sort of as if it was there all along, and not something YOU MADE UP !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
With the simplest of searches I present to you the simplest interpretation of what comprises the substance of those rights: http://www.conservapedia.com/Unalienable_rights
To wit:
An exhaustive list of the unalienable rights possessed by man would probably fill several volumes. However, at a minimum they include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The following items, derived from the American Bill of Rights, expand on these themes:
1. To act in self-defense (personal, family, innocents, nation).
2. To own and carry weapons for self-defense and for ensuring that the nation remains free.
3. To own and control private property (land, money, personal items, intellectual property, etc.)
4. To earn a living and keep the fruit of one’s labor.
5. To freely migrate within the country or to leave the country.
6. To worship -- or not worship -- God in the manner one chooses.
7. To associate with -- or disassociate from -- any person or group.
8. To express any idea through print, voice, banner, or other media.
9. To be secure in one’s home, papers, and person against unwarranted searches and seizures (privacy).
10. To be advised of the charges, in the event of arrest.
11. To have a judge determine if the accused should be held for trial or for punishment.
12. To be tried by a jury of one’s peers and face one’s accuser, in the event of being charged with a crime.
13. To be tried by a jury of one’s peers, in the event of a suit in which the disputed amount is substantive.
14. To suffer no cruel or unusual punishment.
15. To establish, monitor, control, and petition our servant government to help secure the above rights.
16. To abolish said government, when it becomes destructive of these rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except this apparent rage.
Is it because of the big bad pirateys mate?
Have you found one that cares yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do you say that? Because he disagrees with you?
First, the supreme court hasn't ruled on any of this, so by your own argument we don't know if it's Constitutional or not.
Second, what happens when, as is the situation now (in my opinion), the Supreme Court is just as corrupted and biased as the other two branches of government?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you say that? Because he disagrees with you?"
No, because he clearly does not understand what he is trying to talk aboutFirst, the supreme court hasn't ruled on any of this, so by your own argument we don't know if it's Constitutional or not."
oh ok then, So why is Masnick busting his ass trying to tell us this is not constitutional ?
"Second, what happens when, as is the situation now (in my opinion), the Supreme Court is just as corrupted and biased as the other two branches of government?"
You want to have it both ways ???
"Second, what happens when, as is the situation now (in my opinion), the Supreme Court is just as corrupted and biased as the other two branches of government?"
But you just said, (and I quote)
"First, the supreme court hasn't ruled on any of this"
So if the Supreme Court has not ruled on it what does your opinion of how corrupt they are have to do with anything ?
How about you show us an example of Supreme Court corruption. Or is that asking too much from you ?
If you don't believe it's constitutional, then why not petition the Supreme Court to rule on it's constitutionality ? That is your right, the fact they have not ruled on it is a very good indicator that no one really believes it is unconstitutional, if they really did they would challenge it in the USSC.
The fact that it has not been challenged BY ANYONE in the USSC shows that the people who actually understand the constitution and the law know they would lose.
You are free to try, it is your right, even your constitutional right. !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't speak for Mike. I can speak for me: I believe that it's unconstitutional. I don't need the SC to rule on it to know that. It's the plain intention of the Fourth Amendment. Even if the SC ruled otherwise, it would still be plainly unconstitutional.
I don't know what you mean by this.
There's far too many to list here, as the examples have accelerated in the last couple of decades. But let's start with the first obvious example: Bush v Gore.
Because I have no standing. My petition would be dismissed out of hand.
The SC doesn't work that way. They have not ruled on it because they haven't heard a case about it. They can't just rule on things because they want to: they have to rule on a case being presented to them. So far, none has. So that they have not ruled means literally nothing about the merits of the issue.
But it has. The problem is showing standing. This is a secret program and you are not allowed to know if you, specifically, have had your information collected about it. If you can't show that you have, then you can't bring a case. That's different than the case having no merit.
The entire deal was rigged so it was literally impossible to bring a court challenge to it. The NSA leak may have changed that situation, though. It will be interested to see how this progresses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because I have no standing. My petition would be dismissed out of hand."
But you DO have standing, if you believe YOUR phone information is recorded, you are the only person who does have standing.
Everyone who believes their phone details are recorded has the same standing, you are the ONLY ones who can have standing in this.
It's YOUR FIGHT, why don't you want to fight it ??
Oh I know why, you told me why ! WHY ??? (I am glad you asked).
My petition would be dismissed out of hand.
Damn straight, first thing you got right all night.
The only people who have standing in cases for violation of the constitution, is the person who believes they are the subject of that violation.
You cannot exercise the constitutional rights of someone else.
Please, hit the books for something, spend 10 mins to 10 hours (as long as it takes) to actually find out the facts, and learn your own Constitution and how it works, especially how it applies to "we the people" which I take to include your good self.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
the leaked documents are supposed to show clearly the terrible criminal acts the NSA are engaged in, or don't they ?
what about your hero Edmond will to rick being "disappeared" to provide you the 'evidence' you require ?? what happened with all that ??
Why did the Guardian quietly change their published story, why don't you explore that.
Edmond said "I could even spy on the President if I got the email".
What the fuck does that mean ?
has it ever occurred to you he simply made the thing up, or doctored it for his 15 minutes of fame ?
You are a backward lot aren't you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have to have more than a belief that you have standing. You have to prove it. And you can't do that when everyone is legally forbidden from giving you the evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you have your doubts as to it's accuracy (and I would) then that would be a good reason not to proceed.
But the leaked documents should be sufficient for a case, and for further discovery if required, even if you were not privy to the information, the supreme in hearing the constitutionally of it would be.
SO there is no excuse for not testing this case, it would not even be expensive to do, because you would simply have to go to a local or circuit court and they would have to refer it to the Supremes.
But if you don't feel you have a strong case, continue to argue it here on TD, and don't bother the courts, you already know you would lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed! And as I said in a different comment, this changes the game enormously. The SC will eventually be hearing a case, I am sure.
Why would you, when the meat of it has been repeatedly and overtly confirmed by the government?
Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Getting a case before the SC costs millions. Here's a rough overview of that: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/how-much-does-big-supreme-court-case-gay-marriage-cost
And that's not including the costs of bringing the case up through the preliminary courts first.
I absolutely couldn't afford it. However, there are very likely some civil liberties groups who can. That's where I expect the challenge to come from.
I certainly don't know that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
no, and you know it does not work that way, he made a case in a lower court, and that court then had to 'test' this in the supreme court, would have cost that guy basically nothing to have it heard.
But you should know that, (should, but don't !!!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, lower courts cannot "test" or forward cases to the SC. If you lose a case in a lower court, and there is some sign that there is a constitutional issue that the lower courts cannot resolve (usually, but not always, indicated by conflicting rulings from different districts), then you ask the SC to hear the case. Simply asking the SC to hear a case is very expensive, more than $100,000.
And even then, the SC gets to decide what cases they take and what they don't. They cannot be compelled to hear any particular case. If they accept, then you have even bigger legal bills during the court case.
I'm not sure which "guy busted growing pot" you're talking about, but a huge amount of money was spent for it, guaranteed. He may not have spent it himself -- I suspect that a civil liberties group funded it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There will be no discovery because the things can could corroborate such facts are all classified top secret by the government which zealously hide it all from everyone who ever asks.
So you are full of shite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“ACLU Confident This NSA Lawsuit Won’t Trip Where Last Did”, by Eric Lach, TPM Muckraker, June 12, 2013
Brett Max Kaufman…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which explains exactly why, in the landmark case of Marbury v Madison, decided in 1803 —some time after the effective date of the Constitution of 1789— the fourth Chief Justice of the United States, Mr John Marshall, felt it worthwhile to write:
And then, of course, upon giving his more attentive consideration to the question thus posed, Mr Chief Justice Marshall deemed it wise to give a most emphatic answer.
The proposition for which you contend, and which I have copied above, naturally and completely explains why Mr Marshall answered so emphatically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How, specifically, does it violate the Fourth Amendment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(to fail miserably, would be being bad at failure, I am assuming that is the opposite to what you meant to say !!!)
you have shown how to fail successfully !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
lift your game please, at least make it interesting..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
"Similarly, "open fields" such as pastures, open water, and woods may be searched without a warrant, on the ground that conduct occurring therein would have no reasonable expectation of privacy."
"which stated that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields." The decision was rendered on the ground that "open fields are not a 'constitutionally protected area' because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects."
Open Fields = Internet = Phone system
ie, NOT a part of "persons, houses, papers or effects".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
You're might truly be a fucking idiot if you sincerely believe the Internet, and all of its systems, and the phone system, and all of its presence, ubiquity and usages, are open to the entirety of the public.
That argument is not plausible if in order to "view the field" you must requisition the roots of every tree as these roots are, clearly, not in plain site and these roots are, presumably, not on public property.
But let your delusions of applicable legal interpretations continue as, like your right to privacy, your right to voice your opinion is not revokable (at this time).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
actually no it does not, the example provided was private property, in bush land where they had to search and go along a pathway (well out of sight of the public) to find a drug crop.
the field was most definitely NOT open to view by the public either partly or in it's entirety, It even had "NO TRESPASS" signs up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
You know for example that Google hold your search's, you have no expectation that your Google searches are private, you know for a fact they are not.
The phone system, with it's billing and logging of your calls, and the internet with it's billing and logging of your activity is just like an 'open field' you have no expectation of privacy, yet you use it with the knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
No, but tracking people without a court order is STILL LEGAL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
Cellphones are encrypted are you saying the government is breaking wiretap laws?
How would people know if they are being spied or not?
Will we the people have to stalk the government and wiretap their system to get the proof we need since it is classified and cannot be made public to anyone anywhere?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
That doesn't help with the metadata collection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
as your first premise is wrong, your conclusions based on that false premise makes you second premise wrong as well.
(try harder)..
as is your third premise.
really,, try harder please..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
Then the fuckers will have to do what they should have done it in the first place and focus on the fucking bad guys not the entire population of the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: exceptions to fourth amendment warrentless searches
That seems like an enormous logical leap right there. What is your argument to support that assertion?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Immunity from prosecution
The fact that it has not been challenged BY ANYONE in the USSC shows that the people who actually understand the constitution and the law know they would lose.",
You do know why nobody has challenged the legality of the law concerning this?
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_call_database
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Immunity from prosecution
It is legal to put people in jail just because they may do something wrong in some parts of the world, do you think we should do that in the US too?
You have been watching too much Minority Report.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Immunity from prosecution
NSA is not conducting 'blanket wiretapping', see also open fields and exceptions to the fourth amendment.
you guys can do better than this ... (I hope)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Immunity from prosecution
This is absolutely not so.
It's not wiretapping, but it is intrusive surveillance that leads to a very similar end result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Immunity from prosecution
It's not wiretapping
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Immunity from prosecution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Immunity from prosecution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Immunity from prosecution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Immunity from prosecution
So no statute has ever been found unconstitutional then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Immunity from prosecution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paid shills and comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paid shills and comments
And it's so fun and easy to shoot holes in your 'arguments' that I should be paying them for the entertainment it provides!!
Nice to see how when you know your beat, you revert to some stupid, and irrelevant dribble. Wait, where is the ad hom ?
I guess it wont be long, you've run out of everything else..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paid shills and comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paid shills and comments
Wow, you guys need to get out of the basement more often. Mike's newly-adopted Fourth Amendment argument doesn't make much sense since it ignores Smith v. Maryland and its progeny. I'm not scared of counterarguments--I'm desperately seeking them out. But the opinions of experts that I'm finding tend to agree that there's no Fourth Amendment issue with the call records.
See, e.g., Professor Kerr: http://www.volokh.com/2013/06/07/why-does-a-terry-standard-apply-to-querying-the-nsa-call-records-da tabase/ or Professor Siavoshy: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/06/does-the-fourth-amendment-regulate-the-downstream -analysis-of-call-records-by-the-nsa-the-fisc-might-have-ruled-it-does.html
If there are good arguments for why the Fourth Amendment should apply and why the third-party doctrine should not, I'd LOVE to hear them. But Mike regurgitating some guy's conclusory claim that Smith doesn't apply since it's many records and not one is not a good argument because there's no such limitation found in Smith. It's a distinction without a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paid shills and comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paid shills and comments
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/09/rand-paul-threatens-to-challenge-nsa-at-supreme-court/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paid shills and comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paid shills and comments
Quote:
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/350896/third-party-doctrine-reihan-salam
https://en.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katz_ v._United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Antoine_Jones
https://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking
http://theumlaut.com/2013/06/12/power-not-privacy/
http://theumlau t.com/2013/06/12/power-not-privacy/
beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1037/committe es
Why use a GPS device when you can track someone using their cellphones it has the same effect and the same consequences no matter how you want to dress that turd, you can try to spit it shinny but it won't shine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paid shills and comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paid shills and comments
‘Internet discourse is particularly effective at drawing out vehement disagreement.’ —To paraphrase someone (Clay Shirky? Someone else? No matter.)
It might occur to someone that some of the biggest trolls I have ever met online are affiliated with—well, I won't name them outright, but some call them the eff-ers, which I guess must stand for “fuckers.” The fuckers, though, usually have better trolls than these, so I guess the fuckers' secret weapon perhaps has slipped out to some less-experienced, less-sophisticated troll-group…
Anyhow, as I said, the 'net has been observed to be very effective at drawing out vehement, emphatic disagreement. But I deem it takes some sophistication to draw out a really good online debate.
Not a very good lawyer who can't argue the other side from time-to-time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Paid shills and comments
yes, trying to draw out a sophisticated debate here is very much like pulling teeth with pliers, it's slow, it's painful, and you don't get much at the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paid shills and comments
Insulting other posters, the forum. or the forum's host is a real quick way to get insults tossed back at you by some, get your posts ignored by others, and to eventually start finding some of your posts hidden.
Try to stay polite —except in jest— no matter what the provocation.
Or don't. There's a great deal of tolerance here, compared to some other places online. If tossing insults out is your thing…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Paid shills and comments
Can you point to which parts of your contribution you consider to be "sophisticated"? Because I'm seeing a staggering lack of sophistication in all the people 'criticizing' this post and the commentors who support it.
If think the sheer volume of flagged comments proves AG Wright's point. Someone clearly wants this discussion shut down or discredited.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Shills are Rife
Dear Shills:
Just what scares you so much about the 4rth Amendment? Is your agenda such that keeping the populace in control is a necessary condition for your end result? You struggle mightily to prove the unprovable, and yet you continue to struggle. You take exception to the fact that the discussion is even taking place. This nation will not dissolve its principles quietly, as you seem to want. The fact that our treasonous government officials seem to be on your side, does not make you strong, it merely points to your own corruption.
Sincerely
Anonymous Anonymous Coward
PS: Expect more blood in the responses to this, the vampires are thirsty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Shills are Rife
what scares you so much about having your phone details recorded, you know, just like the telephone company has been doing for as long as you have had a telephone.
what scares you so much about having your internet traffic details watched, just like google has been doing to you for years ?
Nothing scares me about the 4th amendment, or the Bill of Rights, 4th Amendment does not even apply in this situation.
What does scare me is the level of ignorance displayed by you and others, about the Constitution and about knowledge in general.
No, that also does not scare me, I am just here because your mostly incorrect, and almost always stupid arguments are a source of great amusement, and mirth.
I guess you missed school on the day they taught Constitutional law, (and common sense).
But for that I am glad, otherwise who else would provide such an excellent source of amusement.
More blood, has there been any blood yet ?? does not appear to be, perhaps you can give us an example of 'blood' in the responses ?
So far, it's clear you've got nothing, I expect that will continue, (unless suddenly you gain an education!!)
(and that's really going to happen... NOT).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Shills are Rife
Yep, you are corrupted.
And no I won't debate you further, as your can only spew vitriol without fact. It is immoral to go to a gunfight with an unarmed person, such as yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Shills are Rife
The long history of governmental abuse that happens when engage in spying like this is what scares me.
Comparisons to the phone company or Google are irrelevant, at least until my data sharing with them is nonconsensual and they have police and military powers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Shills are Rife
What was created as a tool to get rid of the truly annoying (like "I made 7895 in a weekend" spams) has be turned into a tool of censorship, basically removing the offending comments from open view, and forcing people who want to read them to have to click through to each one.
Now, the usual suspects will scream that it's not censorship, because the posts are still there (just hidden). These same people will scream that blocking pirate sites in the UK is censorship - even if the original sites are still there. Funny how that works out.
So in the end, the "shills" aren't scared of the 4th amendment, rather it appears that the local peanut gallery has a really hard time accepting legal reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Shills are Rife
"The fact that our treasonous government officials seem to be on your side, does not make you strong, it merely points to your own corruption." Quoting myself.
Yep, you are corrupted.
And no I won't debate you further, as your can only spew vitriol without fact. It is immoral to go to a gunfight with an unarmed person, such as yourself.
In addition, I have a personal policy to not feed trolls, now get back underneath your bridge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Shills are Rife
I don't care that they are so insecure, like their sad and pathetic leader Pirate Mike, that they can't stand anyone with a dissenting view. But I do care that they are too intellectually dishonest to admit that it's a form of censorship. This place is hilarious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Shills are Rife
Oh wait...
Have you filled for a freedom of information act to get the data "censored" here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Shills are Rife
Government hides/censors something: It is gone. No amount of 'click to view comment/posting' will reveal it, it is freakin' gone.
People on TD(and it takes more than one) 'hide/censor' something: You can view it with a single click of the mouse. Now I suppose if you're too lazy to move the mouse just a little bit over and click, then yeah, the posts are indeed 'hidden' like like when the government does it, but for those willing to put in the miniscule bit of effort to click the text, the two cases can't be more different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Shills are Rife
What is most funny though is the 'closed' posts are really the only posts worth reading, except the ones the Masnick cultists accidently censor ones in support of Mansick's cut / paste (opinions)..
What is also funny with a big response post like this is how few people actually support Masnick's (other people's) views.
at best what 10 or so people, support him, sure they post often, but the number of them is SO LOW !!!.
Years of work by Masnick to gain a fan base of less than 20 people !!!
Now there is a life well spent !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Shills are Rife
I want you to provide me with a free forum for publishing my thoughts -- and if you refuse, it's censorship, by your own insistence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Shills are Rife
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Shills are Rife
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is a brave and courageous man, we should applaud his courage and wisdom in exposing these crimes against us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm Chicken Mike and I'm too scared to ever stand behind the ridiculous bullshit that I publish. Wah!!!!
I'm a total fucking fake and I know it. I lie and manipulate people and I'm a complete fucking joke.
Wah!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does anyone care ?
But if you think your rights are being violated, why not stand up for your right, why rant here on TD where you know NO ONE is listening.
Seems like you have a significant 'lack of balls'.
Why does NSA view your phone records ?? Because they can.
Why does Google view your internet search records, because they can profit from that information.
It's also amusing how silent Masnick is on this issue, you would expect him to at least "TRY" to defend his "principles" even if they are not really his prinicples, I am sure he would be able to Google someone else's principles and copy/paste it here. But not even that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At first I found it funny...
And then I realized that this is probably a necessity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will the fourth amendment even matter?
As soon as one's right against illegal search and seizure has been violated, any evidence attained from it, or any leads investigated as a result of that discovered information is poisoned.
Now granted, this isn't always honored. If we know someone committed a heinous crime (or a caused embarrassment to a powerful political figure) then judges are inclined to look away regarding police intrusiveness. Still, O. J. Simpson was acquitted partly due to improper police procedure (attempts at framing) and the defense's ability to capitalize on that.
We've already seen here on TechDirt topics on how common US citizens average six felonies a day. We've also seen how those felonies have been used to put subversives into jail, not for real crimes they committed, but because their behavior was fringe or challenged the status quo, or embarrassed large corporations.
But the NSA also takes it one step further, by being linked to the DoD, who is allowed to disappear people and detain them indefinitely, and as our prisoners in Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo fear, left to rot in some military containment cell. Or worse, tortured to death by a hired foreign third party. The forth amendment doesn't apply when the DoD extraordinarily renders you disappeared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all money in the bank for masnick, it's all he cares about
No, I worked out the reduction of risk from terrorist damage is worth having NSA perform the same function your police routinely do every day thousands of times a day.
That is watch the population in specific situations to ensure less crime going undetected.
Just like the cop on the side of the road watching for speeding drivers, or take plate numbers, and checking rego and insurance.
Just like banks reporting large and unusual transactions to the police.
and just like phone companies reporting unusual 'activity' in regards to phone usage, and internet usage.
and just like I accept that when I do a Google search I know my search details are not only recorded but that information then is provided to other companies.
And just as I know the police watching cars for illegal activity is perfectly acceptable in a society.
I and it appears most of the American population fully understand why this is something worth doing, and worth doing properly.
It's legal, ethical, typical, not unique, constitutional and even desirable.
We all also know Masnick is only harping on about this because it's 'money in the bank' for him.
And, it beats the shit out of having to do a real job.
Don't give up your 'day' job masnick, you'll starve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's all money in the bank for masnick, it's all he cares about
[ link to this | view in chronology ]