Every politician/government agency that mentions “the public debate” in regards to the current situation are just the most disingenous double-talking bastiges that ever lived. Had it not been for the Snowden leaks, there would be no knowledge of anything to debate, and these agencies continue to frustrate efforts to redress our grievances.
We’ll never shine a light on these roaches by allowing them to have continued control of the switch. The companies that are receiving these letters simply need to engage in a bit of civil disobedience and say “we can neither confirm nor deny that we’ve received X amount of NSLs within the last X months;” I seriously doubt they’d throw a powerful and public figure like Tim Cook in jail for so doing.
Snowden merely exposed the treachery of the sleazeball politicians and investigative agencies that did an end run around our civil rights and alienated our allies around the world. It is these people that can't be trusted to serve in government, except when that service is to their own interests and hidden agendas; their breach of duty trumps Snowden's breach of confidentiality any day.
Yet another "court" that shouldn't exist and doesn't know its place
When the legality of the law is not relevant, you have to wonder with what kind of a sham court it is with which you're dealing, and this absurd decision belies the fact that federal trumps administrative. I looked up exactly what an administrative court is supposed to be; their role should be to ascertain that official public policy acts "are consistent with the law." No consistency is to be had here.
This just goes to show that the exigent circumstance exception needs to be clarified or stricken. How vague is "some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts?" Any barrier between yourself and the cops frustrates their efforts, which—regardless of how illegal they may be—they feel to be legitimate. The propriety of an open-door policy to inspect for potential crime shouldn't be decided the same agency that deems Stingray collection of all calls to be acceptable or by some misguided township in the current spy-happy climate.
"According to Goldsmith, intercepting communications without a warrant is a 'fundamental and accepted' part of waging war."
If warrantlessly intercepting communications is fundamental to waging war, and, if the Executive deems itself the authority for that seizure, then the US is become a de facto monarchy in which our King has declared war against us through the unlawfully interception of our communications.
But you can't object to the techniques used by the military on the grounds that they don't conform to civilian law.
I actually can and do object; what you are suggesting is that we are under martial law and that this agency is free to do as it pleases without the consent of the governed. Please note that, when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the Civil War, Congress authorized that action and even that was later challenged; the SCOTUS rendered the verdict that it was unconstitutional. Here's what they had to say about it: "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."
US citizens have no representation in this matter, because it's unlikely your congressperson is privy to the details of the affairs of the NSA or the secret court that enables it. Remember what the founders did when they felt they lacked representation? Rightly, US citizens—and everyone else caught up in this illegal dragnet surveillance—should be dumping something in a harbor. This upcoming September 11th would be a great day to protest with a march on your respective capitals. Without displays of unrest, we're just going to continue to see our rights erode.
"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." – Martin Luther King, Jr.
I don't think we can all agree that decryption is not testimony. Providing the key may be tantamount to incriminating yourself; as part of the definition of testimony, the dictionary includes "evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something."
A digital key is unlike a key to a safe, which contains static stuff. Encrypted digital files are not tangible evidence that can be produced. Until they are transformed, you have an unknowable Schrdinger's cat scenario, sans the keynot a forgone conclusion.
"the intrusion on any Fourth Amendment interests would be outweighed by "the importance of the governmental interests"
The crux of the bill of rights was to promote human liberty and limit governmental authority. I'm fairly certain that the fundamental right to life outweighs any and all government interests.
@tddial It isnt paranoia when theres valid reason for suspicion and distrust. There is a legitimacy problem in that our governments actions dont conform to the law or that they are rewriting them and throwing up roadblocks to our challenges.
Some things to keep in mind about the NSA is that its programs were designed based on laws that were passed by a Congress that admits it was intentionally kept in the dark about various aspects of these programs enabled by secrecy that undermines our right to representation developed and run by people who may have no more (or possibly less) intelligence than is average and who are equally as capable as others of ethics violations supervised by a management that has intentionally obfuscated facts, lied under oath, and has been found to overstep their authority even by the FISA court
It is obvious that any government program that denies rights and liberties, such as the right to be free from unwarranted searches, is tyrannical; any such law passed, without first amending the Constitution, lacks legitimacy.
Demonizing the NSA and the Executive is incredibly useful and has actually already started to produce at least token change from companies like Google and Microsoft. The fact is that we are increasingly losing our liberty and representation, since we cant be represented in proceedings where we lack informed consent. When the founding fathers felt they lacked representation, they roused a rabble, and, if you dont want to continue to see rights erosions, that is the kind of statesmanship we need now; the NSA must undergo a major correction, and the only way that will happen is with vocal disagreement with their policies and with any entitygovernment or corporationthat is enabling or siding with them.
It is certain that the NSA has already abused its powers; e.g. loveint, and will continue to do so unless they are sufficiently challenged. We are supposed to have the Constitutional right to mount such legal challenge to redress grievances, so why do they keep stymieing those efforts? Its almost certainly because we wont like what we find.
"Halting these purges and age-offs to preserve all Section 702 material, as we understand the Court to have ordered..."
This statement sure sound weaselly, and I'd wager they are distorting the order (again) to circumvent its intent; they can understand the Court to have ordered whatever fits their desired interpretation. It should be trivially easy and within the law to produce copies of information to serve as evidence in a federal court case, and if it isn't, how can such a system comply with existing laws for records retention; further, how can we possibly retain our right to redress the grievance? It places an onerous and insurmountable burden on the plaintiff if the defendant can simply avoid producing evidence, and it seems they've jury-rigged their database(s) to do just that.
Seems you have a very, very broad definition of "spying" that perhaps overemphasizes what might otherwise be the collection of relatively innocuous information.
There is no innocuous informationdata is data. Collect enough about someone and you'll have leverage over them.
Only the most clueless among us would believe that everything they do interacting with others is private. Of course various types of information are being collected by many groups for a plurality or reasons.
What you do in public isn't private but everything else should be. If information is collected about private citizens, it requires informed consent or it's infringing on privacy and liberties.
>>Seems you have a very, very broad definition of "spying" that perhaps overemphasizes what might otherwise be the collection of relatively innocuous information.>Only the most clueless among us would believe that everything they do interacting with others is private. Of course various types of information are being collected by many groups for a plurality or reasons.
At no time has Snowden admitted to lying. Breaking a confidentiality agreement is merely a breach of contract, and, if the contract contemplates an illegality, it is void. He has more credibility than the US government, which is caught spying on its own citizens and attempting to punish the person who exposed their illegal activity. Edward had to flee as a direct consequence of the current social forces in the US.
On the post: Justice Department Admits It Lied To Appeals Court Concerning Companies' Ability To Talk About National Security Letters
"Debate"
We’ll never shine a light on these roaches by allowing them to have continued control of the switch. The companies that are receiving these letters simply need to engage in a bit of civil disobedience and say “we can neither confirm nor deny that we’ve received X amount of NSLs within the last X months;” I seriously doubt they’d throw a powerful and public figure like Tim Cook in jail for so doing.
On the post: Former NSA Official: Anyone Who 'Justified' Snowden's Leaks Shouldn't Be Allowed A Gov't Job
No confidence vote in the NSA and their ilk
On the post: TSA Kangaroo Court Rubber Stamps TSA Fining Guy Who Stripped Naked, Completely Dismissing Court Ruling Finding It Legal
Yet another "court" that shouldn't exist and doesn't know its place
On the post: NJ Town Proposes Law That Would Grant Law Enforcement The Right To Warrantlessly Search Houses To Find Underage Drinkers
Vagary
On the post: Released Memos Justifying Warrantless Wiretapping Point To Limitless Executive Branch Authority
Re: The King is at war with the plebeians
On the post: Released Memos Justifying Warrantless Wiretapping Point To Limitless Executive Branch Authority
The King is at war with the plebeians
If warrantlessly intercepting communications is fundamental to waging war, and, if the Executive deems itself the authority for that seizure, then the US is become a de facto monarchy in which our King has declared war against us through the unlawfully interception of our communications.
On the post: Saying That You're Not Concerned Because The NSA Isn't Interested In You Is Obnoxious And Dangerous
Re:
On the post: Stewart Baker Deploys Shakiest Analogy Yet To Defend The NSA's Collection And Storage Of Non-Targeted Communications
Re:
I actually can and do object; what you are suggesting is that we are under martial law and that this agency is free to do as it pleases without the consent of the governed. Please note that, when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the Civil War, Congress authorized that action and even that was later challenged; the SCOTUS rendered the verdict that it was unconstitutional. Here's what they had to say about it: "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."
On the post: NSA Insisted Snowden Didn't Have Access To Actual Surveillance Data: But He Did... And It Shows How Much Non-Terrorist Content NSA Collects
Protest
"We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." – Martin Luther King, Jr.
On the post: Massachusetts Ignores 5th Amendment; Says Defendant Can Be Forced To Decrypt His Computer
Re:
A digital key is unlike a key to a safe, which contains static stuff. Encrypted digital files are not tangible evidence that can be produced. Until they are transformed, you have an unknowable Schrdinger's cat scenario, sans the keynot a forgone conclusion.
On the post: DOJ Drone Memo: AUMF Trumps All And Rights Are Subject To Arbitrary Revocation In Times Of 'War'
How about human rights?
The crux of the bill of rights was to promote human liberty and limit governmental authority. I'm fairly certain that the fundamental right to life outweighs any and all government interests.
On the post: Supreme Court To Examine The Dividing Line Between Threats And Speech
Re:
Moo.
On the post: Judge Says NSA Can Continue To Destroy Evidence
Re:
It isnt paranoia when theres valid reason for suspicion and distrust. There is a legitimacy problem in that our governments actions dont conform to the law or that they are rewriting them and throwing up roadblocks to our challenges.
Some things to keep in mind about the NSA is that its programs were
designed based on laws that were passed by a Congress that admits it was intentionally kept in the dark about various aspects of these programs
enabled by secrecy that undermines our right to representation
developed and run by people who may have no more (or possibly less) intelligence than is average and who are equally as capable as others of ethics violations
supervised by a management that has intentionally obfuscated facts, lied under oath, and has been found to overstep their authority even by the FISA court
It is obvious that any government program that denies rights and liberties, such as the right to be free from unwarranted searches, is tyrannical; any such law passed, without first amending the Constitution, lacks legitimacy.
Demonizing the NSA and the Executive is incredibly useful and has actually already started to produce at least token change from companies like Google and Microsoft. The fact is that we are increasingly losing our liberty and representation, since we cant be represented in proceedings where we lack informed consent. When the founding fathers felt they lacked representation, they roused a rabble, and, if you dont want to continue to see rights erosions, that is the kind of statesmanship we need now; the NSA must undergo a major correction, and the only way that will happen is with vocal disagreement with their policies and with any entitygovernment or corporationthat is enabling or siding with them.
It is certain that the NSA has already abused its powers; e.g. loveint, and will continue to do so unless they are sufficiently challenged. We are supposed to have the Constitutional right to mount such legal challenge to redress grievances, so why do they keep stymieing those efforts? Its almost certainly because we wont like what we find.
On the post: Judge Says NSA Can Continue To Destroy Evidence
This statement sure sound weaselly, and I'd wager they are distorting the order (again) to circumvent its intent; they can understand the Court to have ordered whatever fits their desired interpretation. It should be trivially easy and within the law to produce copies of information to serve as evidence in a federal court case, and if it isn't, how can such a system comply with existing laws for records retention; further, how can we possibly retain our right to redress the grievance? It places an onerous and insurmountable burden on the plaintiff if the defendant can simply avoid producing evidence, and it seems they've jury-rigged their database(s) to do just that.
On the post: NSA, GCHQ Spying On Angry Birds And Lots Of Phone Apps: Time For Mobile Security To Up Its Game
Why do we care?
"Why do we care?
Additional exploitation"
Never have truer words been written.
On the post: Rep. Peter King Says NSA Should Spy On Congress, Because They Might Be Talking To Al Qaeda
Re: Re:
Seems you have a very, very broad definition of "spying" that perhaps overemphasizes what might otherwise be the collection of relatively innocuous information.
There is no innocuous informationdata is data. Collect enough about someone and you'll have leverage over them.
Only the most clueless among us would believe that everything they do interacting with others is private. Of course various types of information are being collected by many groups for a plurality or reasons.
What you do in public isn't private but everything else should be. If information is collected about private citizens, it requires informed consent or it's infringing on privacy and liberties.
On the post: Rep. Peter King Says NSA Should Spy On Congress, Because They Might Be Talking To Al Qaeda
Re:
On the post: Snowden's 'Dead Man's Switch' May Just Make Him A Bigger Target
Re: He already lied
Next >>