Uh, the issue with the GOP in Congress is they are filibustering EVERYTHING. And not actually having to do what Ms. Davis did by actually standing up behind their 'principles' in the bright spotlight.
The GOP prefer the dark anonymous corners. It's why they claim to not have voted no on anything they filibustered. It was never technically voted on, only whether to stop debate and vote.
Wouldn't you be just as pissed at your Reps/Sens if they *never* came home? Their leaving on a Thursday very likely means they are going home to districts to talk to constituents.
Not being in Washington doesn't automatically mean they're on vacation.
The ever increasing haystacks *may* cause needles to be missed - ff they're trying to process the haystacks in real-time. I'm not as convinced they are trying to do that.
The 'haystacks' purpose is to be a time machine so they can go back to last year and figure out who you were talking to then, once they decide 'now' that you're suspicious.
Different purposes. And frankly you can do both at the same time as long as you aren't trying to monitor the haystacks in real time, but use more traditional methods for ongoing investigations.
No, Mike is conflating things (something he usually rails against).
Hayden was talking about asking questions about the meta-data. The President said that after querying the meta-data if they want to actually tap that phone number, then they have to go back and get a warrant.
Hayden wasn't saying that at all.
I'd argue it's bad that they can query the data all they want without oversight, but it isn't content which is what the President was talking about.
""The whole point of the 4th Amendment is that you're not allowed to collect the haystack. You're only supposed to be able to, on narrow circumstances, go looking for the needle with proper oversight."
Citation needed. Do you have any actual analysis, or just more of your trademarked conclusory statements?"
Uh, the 4th Amendment is that citation.
"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."
Specifically you have to be SPECIFIC if you want to collect data on someone. Not, collect everything and then be specific about what you ask the collection of data at a later date about last week.
No, this isn't publicly available information. This is your PHONE RECORDS, which until PRISM, etc, needed a valid court order to be disclosed.
Now the 'court order' being used is 'give us all records on everyone'. If that doesn't violate the 4th amendment against unreasonable search, nothing does anymore.
Giving your data to a 3rd party is entirely different than the gov't collecting your data for posterity (whether directly or from said 3rd parties).
While really really dumb, the Court original ruling on lack of standing was the right ruling based on the law.
I don't necessarily understand 'standing' or agree on it's requirement for large issues like this, but that's our legal system as it stands these days.
False comparison. The laws have changed to allow seat belt use to be a primary offense. They haven't been abusing seat belt violations to pull you over (they have numerous ways to do this already). Seat belt use is also better for society, less deaths, less serious injury, less emergency care needed.
Abuse of a system does not mean a system shouldn't be used. It means we should fix the system though the issues with post 9/11 security theater are vast.
#1 - a valid argument...for now. Technology improves and it will be quite possible to take that stray hair from your head and do the same thing before too long.
#2 - Are fingerprints taken during arrest used to match you to unsolved crimes? My assumption is that is the current case. If so, then taking DNA for the same reasons is no different.
#3 - Same argument for #1 applies. You describe 'today' and perhaps that's valid, but it won't be all that long before star trek tricorder type tech IS available and can do what you say is impossible. Basing your objections on the state of tech rather than the actual legal arguments is rather like the Music Industry saying pre-Napster internet sharing wasn't a problem.
I just don't see the issue with checking people who've been arrested against the list of unsolved crimes.
I DO see (and have) a problem with said arrestee's information being stored forever if they're acquitted but the 2 issues are very different.
"considered to be the foremost liberal authority on constitutional law"
I guess I'm happy for his point of view to be put out there, but it seems like somewhat a conflict of interest to be the foremost authority and be specifically partisan.
"law enforcement and governments wont listen to anyone that talks sense"
The people who won't listen are the "ZOMG it's Bieber" public. They don't want to be bothered to even listen let alone vote (US - I believe Aussies are required to vote).
If the public is too much sheep and not enough people actively involved, you only get the truly psychotic in office making the rules. Think about politics in the US. Would *you* want to have your life raked over the coals ever 2/4/6 years? Sane people say no. Only people who have purposely lived a life so devoid of anything interesting can be elected - or people who have actively hidden their true selves from anyone else. Neither are what I'd consider good choices for leadership, yet it's all we get now.
On the post: Federal Judge None Too Impressed With Government's Defense Of Its 'No Fly' List
Re:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html
On the post: Internet Catches Texas Senate Fudging Time-Stamps On Abortion Bill
Re: Filibuster
The GOP prefer the dark anonymous corners. It's why they claim to not have voted no on anything they filibustered. It was never technically voted on, only whether to stop debate and vote.
On the post: NSA Boss Asks Congress For Blanket Immunity For Companies That Help NSA Spy On Everyone
Re:
"Wheeeeeeee" thud
On the post: More Than Half The Senate Skips Town Rather Than Attend Briefing About NSA Surveillance
Re:
Not being in Washington doesn't automatically mean they're on vacation.
On the post: Former NSA Whistleblower Bill Binney: The NSA Is Making Itself Dysfunctional With Too Much Data
Haystacks and other missions
The 'haystacks' purpose is to be a time machine so they can go back to last year and figure out who you were talking to then, once they decide 'now' that you're suspicious.
Different purposes. And frankly you can do both at the same time as long as you aren't trying to monitor the haystacks in real time, but use more traditional methods for ongoing investigations.
On the post: Former NSA Boss: We Don't Data Mine Our Giant Data Collection, We Just Ask It Questions
Re: So POTUS lied, then?
Hayden was talking about asking questions about the meta-data. The President said that after querying the meta-data if they want to actually tap that phone number, then they have to go back and get a warrant.
Hayden wasn't saying that at all.
I'd argue it's bad that they can query the data all they want without oversight, but it isn't content which is what the President was talking about.
At least it isn't content that we know of...yet.
On the post: Former NSA Boss: We Don't Data Mine Our Giant Data Collection, We Just Ask It Questions
Re:
Citation needed. Do you have any actual analysis, or just more of your trademarked conclusory statements?"
Uh, the 4th Amendment is that citation.
"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."
Specifically you have to be SPECIFIC if you want to collect data on someone. Not, collect everything and then be specific about what you ask the collection of data at a later date about last week.
On the post: Remember When Supreme Court Rejected Review Of FISA Amendments Act, Because It Was 'Too Speculative' That Plaintiffs Were Being Monitored?
Re: It still comes to the same thing
Now the 'court order' being used is 'give us all records on everyone'. If that doesn't violate the 4th amendment against unreasonable search, nothing does anymore.
Giving your data to a 3rd party is entirely different than the gov't collecting your data for posterity (whether directly or from said 3rd parties).
On the post: Remember When Supreme Court Rejected Review Of FISA Amendments Act, Because It Was 'Too Speculative' That Plaintiffs Were Being Monitored?
Re:
I don't necessarily understand 'standing' or agree on it's requirement for large issues like this, but that's our legal system as it stands these days.
On the post: Remember When Supreme Court Rejected Review Of FISA Amendments Act, Because It Was 'Too Speculative' That Plaintiffs Were Being Monitored?
Re:
The government sent the evidence to people being surveilled before and they still weren't allowed to use it.
Sad day for the US all around.
On the post: How Can NSA Surveillance Leaks Both Be No Big Deal And Put Us All In Danger?
Re: Simple
However, since said intelligence capabilities are by any measure unconstitutional it's not a 'bad' thing to damage them as such.
On the post: How Can NSA Surveillance Leaks Both Be No Big Deal And Put Us All In Danger?
Re:
On the post: Irony Alert: John Steele Denies Uploading Anything Ever Despite Growing IP Evidence
Re: How about we allow him to settle?
On the post: Horrifying Supreme Court Ruling Lets Police Collect DNA Because You Might Just Be A Horrible Criminal
Re: Re: Re:
If you're acquitted or charges are dropped, you shouldn't still be kept in the list of people who've committed crimes.
But checking arrestees against open unsolved crimes is something I don't have a problem with whether via fingerprints or DNA.
On the post: Horrifying Supreme Court Ruling Lets Police Collect DNA Because You Might Just Be A Horrible Criminal
Re:
Abuse of a system does not mean a system shouldn't be used. It means we should fix the system though the issues with post 9/11 security theater are vast.
On the post: Horrifying Supreme Court Ruling Lets Police Collect DNA Because You Might Just Be A Horrible Criminal
Re:
#2 - Are fingerprints taken during arrest used to match you to unsolved crimes? My assumption is that is the current case. If so, then taking DNA for the same reasons is no different.
#3 - Same argument for #1 applies. You describe 'today' and perhaps that's valid, but it won't be all that long before star trek tricorder type tech IS available and can do what you say is impossible. Basing your objections on the state of tech rather than the actual legal arguments is rather like the Music Industry saying pre-Napster internet sharing wasn't a problem.
I just don't see the issue with checking people who've been arrested against the list of unsolved crimes.
I DO see (and have) a problem with said arrestee's information being stored forever if they're acquitted but the 2 issues are very different.
On the post: Constitutional Scholar Who Taught Obama Comes Out Against Bradley Manning Trial
I guess I'm happy for his point of view to be put out there, but it seems like somewhat a conflict of interest to be the foremost authority and be specifically partisan.
(and I'm extremely liberal myself)
On the post: Student Wins Intel Science Fair; Threatened With Patent Infringement Claims For Patent Not Yet Granted
Re:
Isn't there some uniqueness clause in patents? Such that if someone else develops the same thing completely independently then it's not patentable?
Serious question looking for answers :)
On the post: Australian Spies Want To Hack Tor After Realizing It Routes Around Their Surveillance
The people who won't listen are the "ZOMG it's Bieber" public. They don't want to be bothered to even listen let alone vote (US - I believe Aussies are required to vote).
If the public is too much sheep and not enough people actively involved, you only get the truly psychotic in office making the rules. Think about politics in the US. Would *you* want to have your life raked over the coals ever 2/4/6 years? Sane people say no. Only people who have purposely lived a life so devoid of anything interesting can be elected - or people who have actively hidden their true selves from anyone else. Neither are what I'd consider good choices for leadership, yet it's all we get now.
On the post: Prank Resulting In 2 NFL GMs Talking To Each Other Results In Up To 5 Years Of Prison, $500k Fine
Re:
I still seem to get the calls though, even with Do Not Call registered.
Next >>