If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   IRS decides, despite court rulings to the contrary, that there is no expectation of privacy in email and they can read yours whenever they want, citizen   (news.cnet.com) divider line 103
    More: Asinine, IRS, expectation of privacy, Zoe Lofgren, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, regulations, voicemail, search and seizure  
•       •       •

4039 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Apr 2013 at 11:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-11 01:42:40 AM

OgreMagi: BMulligan: OgreMagi: That IRS has made it clear in the past that until the Supreme Court makes a ruling, they are free to ignore lower court rulings.  That is not how our justice system is supposed to work, assholes.

It's exactly how our justice system is supposed to work. Sixth Circuit rulings are only mandatory authority in the Sixth Circuit, and never in Tax Court proceedings. This is covered on, like. the third day of law school.

They have a habit of ignoring citations that would apply to a particular jurisdiction.  They only answer to the Supreme Court and their own tax court.  And their tax court is filled with judges who were formerly IRS agents.


I think BMulligan's point is that this *IS* how our justice system is set up and supposed to work.

As for the complaint about what the judges used to be.... what of it? Do you think there is a conspiratorial situation where IRS agents have some huge personal stake in farking you over and stealing all your monies?  I kind of doubt they get as emotionally invested as all that. It should come as no surprise that people with boatloads of experience in a field wind up judges.
 
2013-04-11 01:47:34 AM

Smackledorfer: OgreMagi: BMulligan: OgreMagi: That IRS has made it clear in the past that until the Supreme Court makes a ruling, they are free to ignore lower court rulings.  That is not how our justice system is supposed to work, assholes.

It's exactly how our justice system is supposed to work. Sixth Circuit rulings are only mandatory authority in the Sixth Circuit, and never in Tax Court proceedings. This is covered on, like. the third day of law school.

They have a habit of ignoring citations that would apply to a particular jurisdiction.  They only answer to the Supreme Court and their own tax court.  And their tax court is filled with judges who were formerly IRS agents.

I think BMulligan's point is that this *IS* how our justice system is set up and supposed to work.

As for the complaint about what the judges used to be.... what of it? Do you think there is a conspiratorial situation where IRS agents have some huge personal stake in farking you over and stealing all your monies?  I kind of doubt they get as emotionally invested as all that. It should come as no surprise that people with boatloads of experience in a field wind up judges.


From what I've read, IRS agents are given bonuses and promotions based on how much they recover.  So yes, they do have a huge personal stake in farking people over.
 
2013-04-11 01:51:42 AM

Quantumbunny: fusillade762: 1) Why would the IRS want to read my email? I can't think of a single thing I send via email (or on Facebook, for that matter) that would be relevant to my tax situation.

2) Good luck! Considering all the stupid shiat I get, good luck sorting through all of it.

What about all the confirmation e-mails for everything you buy online? You properly report use tax on all online purchases?


What is this "use tax" you speak of? I've never paid any taxes on anything I've ever bought online.
 
2013-04-11 01:53:01 AM
Might be a good idea to use PGP.
 
2013-04-11 01:58:09 AM
chomp!
 
2013-04-11 01:58:16 AM

OgreMagi: So yes, they do have a huge personal stake in farking people over.


I said emotional, not "an incentive to do their jobs".  The two are different. Nice try though.

Are the judges given these bonuses based on how much the IRS agents bring in? If not, there is no reason to assume judge bias.  And while I can see the complain about an IRS agent getting a bonus based on stealin' all ur monies, I certainly see no reason why a promotion would not be merit-based for an IRS agent with the go-getters getting a promotion over the lazy people who sit on their ass all day and don't even try.

If you people aren't whining that the government hires and encourages the worst work ethic and then overpays them, you are complaining that they pay them somewhat based on the job they do and give promotions to the harder workers.  wtf.

Brace yourself: lawyers become judges presiding over criminal trials! The whole system is dirty and you can't handle the truth!
 
2013-04-11 02:03:54 AM
One thing not mentioned, is that several large internet services companies like Google and Microsoft have recently started telling all the various types of Federal officials to fark off and come back with a warrant instead of just handing your information over without one.
 
2013-04-11 02:07:38 AM

BullBearMS: One thing not mentioned, is that several large internet services companies like Google and Microsoft have recently started telling all the various types of Federal officials to fark off and come back with a warrant instead of just handing your their information over without one.


It is their (Google, Microsoft, whatever) information.  You gave it to them.  It is up to them to willingly tell the government or to force them to get a warrant for it.
 
2013-04-11 02:13:01 AM

OgreMagi: From what I've read, IRS agents are given bonuses and promotions based on how much they recover.


Citation, please.
 
2013-04-11 02:14:53 AM
Why would they want to look if they don't have an excuse for a warrant?  That's called fishing, and it's bullshiat.
 
2013-04-11 02:16:34 AM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Lavbit.com. My e-mail is stored encrypted to my passphrase. I'm more than happy for them to hand over a meaningless string of characters to anyone that wants a copy.


The administer of that site can change your password to what ever they want to access your account. If the government forces them to hand over your email, all they have to do is change your password to access your account to hand over all your emails in clear text.

Your best bet is find somebody who's servers are in a country that doesn't respond to U.S subpoenas or warrants.
 
2013-04-11 02:20:17 AM

Smackledorfer: BullBearMS: One thing not mentioned, is that several large internet services companies like Google and Microsoft have recently started telling all the various types of Federal officials to fark off and come back with a warrant instead of just handing your their information over without one.

It is their (Google, Microsoft, whatever) information.  You gave it to them.  It is up to them to willingly tell the government or to force them to get a warrant for it.


I'll just leave this bit of rational thought here for people who don't defend anything the current administration does, no matter how wrong.

"Given the fundamental similarities between email and traditional forms of communication, it would defy common sense to afford emails lesser Fourth Amendment protection.... It follows that email requires strong protection under the Fourth Amendment; otherwise, the Fourth Amendment would prove an ineffective guardian of private communication, an essential purpose it has long been recognized to serve."

Warning: PDF File of court ruling
 
2013-04-11 02:23:15 AM

lewismarktwo: Why would they want to look if they don't have an excuse for a warrant?  That's called fishing, and it's bullshiat.


This doesn't make sense.  Whether it is a cop or an IRS agent, if we believe the thing they are trying to enforce is a good thing to enforce we should want them using all the information they can legally get their hands on to enforce it.

And yes, I realize some people out there think consensual encounters should go away and cops shouldn't even have the ability to build articulable facts up to reach probably cause, reasonable suspicion, etc.  I've even seen people argue they shouldn't be allowed to run your plates and pull you over if you have a warrant for your arrest.  So I understand we won't all agree on what the legal threshold for any given bit of information gathering is.

But by calling these things fishing you are essentially arguing against any proactive behavior. Any action taken prior to having a warrant-level of suspicion becomes fishing, but if they aren't supposed to 'fish' then how would they ever get that level of suspicion to get the warrant?
 
2013-04-11 02:31:33 AM

BullBearMS: Smackledorfer: BullBearMS: One thing not mentioned, is that several large internet services companies like Google and Microsoft have recently started telling all the various types of Federal officials to fark off and come back with a warrant instead of just handing your their information over without one.

It is their (Google, Microsoft, whatever) information.  You gave it to them.  It is up to them to willingly tell the government or to force them to get a warrant for it.

I'll just leave this bit of rational thought here for people who don't defend anything the current administration does, no matter how wrong.

"Given the fundamental similarities between email and traditional forms of communication, it would defy common sense to afford emails lesser Fourth Amendment protection.... It follows that email requires strong protection under the Fourth Amendment; otherwise, the Fourth Amendment would prove an ineffective guardian of private communication, an essential purpose it has long been recognized to serve."

Warning: PDF File of court ruling


First: thank you for providing a link without a gigantic copy-pasta crammed in.

Second: Are you accusing me of "defending anything the current administration does, no matter how wrong"?

Third:

"Warshak enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy in his emails vis-a-vis
NuVox
, his Internet Service Provider. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Thus, government agents violated his Fourth Amendment rights by compelling NuVox
to turn over the emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause. "

Obviously the government would require a warrant to force anyone, private citizen or corporation, to submit to a search that lacked a warrant exception to the fourth amendment. My argument is that NuVox, since Warshak gave them the information, would have the right to either furnish that information to the government or not, pending a warrant forcing them to.  It looks like your link supports me. If you don't want a third party to have your information and give it to the government, don't give a third party your information. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
 
2013-04-11 02:35:28 AM

ongbok: Your best bet is find somebody who's servers are in a country that doesn't respond to U.S subpoenas or warrants.


These guys have worked together with the guy who created PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) and come up with smart phone, and tablet apps to offer encrypted e-mails, texts, voice calls, file transfers, and video chat.

They designed their system so that the information they have on what you are doing is minimal and automatically deleted after a few days. They don't have the keys to read your encrypted data.

An article with more information is here. They have taken the difficulty out of using strong encryption.
 
2013-04-11 02:41:46 AM

Smackledorfer: My argument is that NuVox, since Warshak gave them the information, would have the right to either furnish that information to the government or not, pending a warrant forcing them to. It looks like your link supports me. If you don't want a third party to have your information and give it to the government, don't give a third party your information. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.


So now that the human race is replacing paper documents with digital documents the Fourth Amendment no longer counts?

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.
 
2013-04-11 02:43:40 AM
DeArmondVI:
If we don't like it, there is a model to follow: think Tahrir square, Madison, or Occupy. Think numbers, mass numbers of people in the street and on the (literal) doorstep of power demanding reduced powers.

Yeah, I'm thinking more along the lines of Kent State, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and drone warfare. Our government, including the current junta, has shown no resistance to killing citizens. It's interesting you don't cite the Syrian, Libyan, Bahraini, or Iranian examples. I think, based on past evidence, that if the American people attempted anything with the potential for true upheaval, there wouldn't be many people around for the after party.

And you're right. Romney would have been no better. Thank you deity of choice Obama hasn't set the bar too high.
 
2013-04-11 02:43:45 AM

Smackledorfer: lewismarktwo: Why would they want to look if they don't have an excuse for a warrant?  That's called fishing, and it's bullshiat.

This doesn't make sense.  Whether it is a cop or an IRS agent, if we believe the thing they are trying to enforce is a good thing to enforce we should want them using all the information they can legally get their hands on to enforce it.

And yes, I realize some people out there think consensual encounters should go away and cops shouldn't even have the ability to build articulable facts up to reach probably cause, reasonable suspicion, etc.  I've even seen people argue they shouldn't be allowed to run your plates and pull you over if you have a warrant for your arrest.  So I understand we won't all agree on what the legal threshold for any given bit of information gathering is.

But by calling these things fishing you are essentially arguing against any proactive behavior. Any action taken prior to having a warrant-level of suspicion becomes fishing, but if they aren't supposed to 'fish' then how would they ever get that level of suspicion to get the warrant?


There's a little bit of difference between a license plate and private correspondence, but you knew that.
 
2013-04-11 02:57:32 AM

ongbok: The administer of that site can change your password to what ever they want to access your account


You don't understand how encryption works. They can change my password, but if I lose it and need it reset for example, all my e-mails are gone forever. All the new password does is give me access to my (now empty) account. The system was specifically designed to protect against that possibility.
 
2013-04-11 03:32:05 AM

BullBearMS: Smackledorfer: So now that the human race is replacing paper documents with digital documents the Fourth Amendment no longer counts?


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.


No. It's that "Facebook" is not "their persons, houses, papers, and effects". Facebook is its own company. According to longstanding case law, as soon as you give something to a third party, then it isn't yours any more. Similarly, if you are a drug dealer, and you throw out your list of suppliers in the trash, it is perfectly permissible for the police to go through it without a warrant. By throwing it away, you relinquished possession of it.

Period.

Honestly, I don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand this. Don't want people to be looking at your stuff?  Then don't give it to other people to look at, dumbass!
 
2013-04-11 03:36:18 AM

Mugato: cman: Well, Obama, now it is your move.

I doubt Obama personally knew what the IRS was doing, but now that it is out, he needs to take care of this shiat right away.

You just had to immediately jump into the "Obama" thing like a dick. Like the Mcain regime would have been a personal freedom utopia.


Since we're only locked in a room with an opened 30lb box of rape instead of a 40lb box of rape, he's a dick for pointing out that maybe we should insist on not being in a room with boxes of rape at all?

Obama has seriously been one of the worst presidents in memory on electronic rights. I don't think his administration has ever met a "we don't need a warrant, because the Internet" argument it didn't lovingly fellate. If a future president it worse, it'll be because the bar's been set to so low he tripped over it.
 
2013-04-11 03:51:09 AM

Mr.Insightful: Honestly, I don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand this. Don't want people to be looking at your stuff? Then don't give it to other people to look at, dumbass!


So private communications between American citizens in the digital age are no longer allowed?

Or are you saying that everyone should be required to run their own personal fiber optic lines to each and every person you want to communicate with, since the Government isn't bound by the Fourth Amendment if you use the public internet?
 
2013-04-11 04:06:41 AM

BlippityBleep: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Lavbit.com. My e-mail is stored encrypted to my passphrase. I'm more than happy for them to hand over a meaningless string of characters to anyone that wants a copy.

my voice is my passport, verify me?


Dammit, now I want to watch Sneakers, and there's no way Hulu will ever have it.
 
2013-04-11 04:06:44 AM

erik-k: Mugato: cman: Well, Obama, now it is your move.

I doubt Obama personally knew what the IRS was doing, but now that it is out, he needs to take care of this shiat right away.

You just had to immediately jump into the "Obama" thing like a dick. Like the Mcain regime would have been a personal freedom utopia.

Since we're only locked in a room with an opened 30lb box of rape instead of a 40lb box of rape, he's a dick for pointing out that maybe we should insist on not being in a room with boxes of rape at all?

Obama has seriously been one of the worst presidents in memory on electronic rights. I don't think his administration has ever met a "we don't need a warrant, because the Internet" argument it didn't lovingly fellate. If a future president it worse, it'll be because the bar's been set to so low he tripped over it.


Lovingly fellate is exactly right.

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to halt a legal challenge weighing the constitutionality of a once-secret warrantless surveillance program targeting Americans' communications

and

The Obama administration is urging the Supreme Court to allow the government, without a court warrant, to affix GPS devices on suspects' vehicles to track their every move.

and

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.

and

The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order

and

The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.

and of course most relevant to the current actions being discussed:

The Obama administration is urging Congress not to adopt legislation that would impose constitutional safeguards on Americans' e-mail stored in the cloud.

Then there are very disturbing warnings from those in Congress sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee who have access to insider information...

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.
This is absolutely farking pathetic and I can't imagine why anyone would be trying to make excuses for this behavior.
 
2013-04-11 04:22:38 AM

BullBearMS: One thing not mentioned, is that several large internet services companies like Google and Microsoft have recently started telling all the various types of Federal officials to fark off and come back with a warrant instead of just handing your information over without one.


Google recently challenged one of those National Security Letter demands, too.

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Google-Fighting-National-Security -L etters-123760

A federal district judge ruled the "gag order" part of such letters unconstitutional in March.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/15/national-security-letters-with-gag -o rder
 
2013-04-11 04:53:51 AM

BullBearMS: Mr.Insightful: Honestly, I don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand this. Don't want people to be looking at your stuff? Then don't give it to other people to look at, dumbass!

So private communications between American citizens in the digital age are no longer allowed?

Or are you saying that everyone should be required to run their own personal fiber optic lines to each and every person you want to communicate with, since the Government isn't bound by the Fourth Amendment if you use the public internet?


No, it's that YOU don't understand what "private communications" means. Hint: It doesn't mean CONFIDENTIAL communication.

If I tell you something via spoken word, written word, email, semaphore, smoke signal, or carrier pigeon, it may be a private communication between the two of us in that it's something only the two of us want to talk about; but if we have carried out our conversation anywhere that a third party could reasonably have heard (seen, smelled or been shiat on by) our conversation, then we have NO EXPECTATION of privacy. The fact that we wanted it to be private is irrelevant.

So, as I expounded on probably too much above, since any third party could conceivably Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: your "private" email into the computers of people you never even heard of, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy as regards your email. Now, whether or not the hard drive your email is ON is subject to warrant requirements is another matter; and whether the printout of what is encoded in the hard drive should be subject to warrant hasn't really been tested in the courts yet. "Email" is kind of an ephemeral thing, after all, because it exists nowhere until it is read or printed. However, the fact remains that it could be forwarded completely without your knowledge or approval right into the IRS office if someone felt like it, so you have no expectation of privacy.
 
2013-04-11 05:16:53 AM

dookdookdook: Who's talking about things the IRS would care about in email anyway?

Oh right, big corporations.

Since this affects the only Americans that count, I predict massive outrage over this.

*checks Fox Nation*

Eeyup


Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day. Yes, there is a fair bit of derp there but behind it are legitimate and serious concerns about privacy that go beyond left and right.
 
2013-04-11 05:25:18 AM
in canada we have this thing called

Gyrfalcon: BullBearMS: Mr.Insightful: Honestly, I don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand this. Don't want people to be looking at your stuff? Then don't give it to other people to look at, dumbass!

So private communications between American citizens in the digital age are no longer allowed?

Or are you saying that everyone should be required to run their own personal fiber optic lines to each and every person you want to communicate with, since the Government isn't bound by the Fourth Amendment if you use the public internet?

No, it's that YOU don't understand what "private communications" means. Hint: It doesn't mean CONFIDENTIAL communication.

If I tell you something via spoken word, written word, email, semaphore, smoke signal, or carrier pigeon, it may be a private communication between the two of us in that it's something only the two of us want to talk about; but if we have carried out our conversation anywhere that a third party could reasonably have heard (seen, smelled or been shiat on by) our conversation, then we have NO EXPECTATION of privacy. The fact that we wanted it to be private is irrelevant.

So, as I expounded on probably too much above, since any third party could conceivably Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: your "private" email into the computers of people you never even heard of, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy as regards your email. Now, whether or not the hard drive your email is ON is subject to warrant requirements is another matter; and whether the printout of what is encoded in the hard drive should be subject to warrant hasn't really been tested in the courts yet. "Email" is kind of an ephemeral thing, after all, because it exists nowhere until it is read or printed. However, the fact remains that it could be forwarded completely without your knowledge or approval right into the IRS office if someone felt like it, so you have no expectation of privacy.


The mail service isent allowed to randomly open letters and show pictures of the content to other people, what makes you think that digital comunication should not be treated as a common carrirer? similar to the telephone or mail systems?
 
2013-04-11 05:33:01 AM
Look the thing is this: if people KNOW they're being spied on and they are up to some actually nefarious shiat, they will stop leaving evidence.  shiatting on the fourth amendment should be reserved for people who actually cause harm to the union.
 
2013-04-11 06:17:14 AM
I think it's almost unbearably cute that people think that the big threat to their utterly imaginary "privacy" on the corporate owned internet is the "gummint".
Any time I need the deck chairs on the Titanic rearranged, I'll make sure to give you tinfoil-hat assholes a call.
 
2013-04-11 06:28:26 AM

Gordon Bennett: dookdookdook: Who's talking about things the IRS would care about in email anyway?

Oh right, big corporations.

Since this affects the only Americans that count, I predict massive outrage over this.

*checks Fox Nation*

Eeyup

Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day. Yes, there is a fair bit of derp there but behind it are legitimate and serious concerns about privacy that go beyond left and right.


The problem is that anything we hear from the right these days is just assumed to be derp. And that's a pretty good assumption. And, if it wasn't the IRS, the right would be all, "Hell yes, spy on our citizens! Keep me safe from terruh, government!"
 
2013-04-11 08:19:46 AM
Indefensible. So stop trying.
 
2013-04-11 08:27:37 AM
It's crazy.  I'm sure if you switched "Bush" with "Obama" in this thread it would read a whole lot different.  People have to realize that the government exists for itself, its constituents are secondary.  Very matrix like actually.

It's not Red vs. Blue, it's them vs. you.
 
2013-04-11 08:52:09 AM

BullBearMS: One thing not mentioned, is that several large internet services companies like Google and Microsoft have recently started telling all the various types of Federal officials to fark off and come back with a warrant instead of just handing your information over without one.


I was wondering about that.  If there isn't a warrant, are there any consequences that Google / MS / whichever ISP faces when they get hit with a request from the government? I feel like from a pure administrative burden perspective they might want to discourage the government from requesting information willy-nilly.
 
2013-04-11 09:17:43 AM

cman: Well, Obama, now it is your move.

I doubt Obama personally knew what the IRS was doing, but now that it is out, he needs to take care of this shiat right away.


"I'm sure Comrade Stalin would do something if he knew of these injustices!"  Was frequently heard too.

/Need a Goodwin for Stalinizing a thread.
 
2013-04-11 09:20:50 AM

jso2897: I think it's almost unbearably cute that people think that the big threat to their utterly imaginary "privacy" on the corporate owned internet is the "gummint".
Any time I need the deck chairs on the Titanic rearranged, I'll make sure to give you tinfoil-hat assholes a call.


Well the gummint *IS* the one with all the guns. Need clarification? Read my username a couple times, and think about it.
 
2013-04-11 09:30:07 AM

lewismarktwo: Smackledorfer: lewismarktwo: Why would they want to look if they don't have an excuse for a warrant?  That's called fishing, and it's bullshiat.

This doesn't make sense.  Whether it is a cop or an IRS agent, if we believe the thing they are trying to enforce is a good thing to enforce we should want them using all the information they can legally get their hands on to enforce it.

And yes, I realize some people out there think consensual encounters should go away and cops shouldn't even have the ability to build articulable facts up to reach probably cause, reasonable suspicion, etc.  I've even seen people argue they shouldn't be allowed to run your plates and pull you over if you have a warrant for your arrest.  So I understand we won't all agree on what the legal threshold for any given bit of information gathering is.

But by calling these things fishing you are essentially arguing against any proactive behavior. Any action taken prior to having a warrant-level of suspicion becomes fishing, but if they aren't supposed to 'fish' then how would they ever get that level of suspicion to get the warrant?

There's a little bit of difference between a license plate and private correspondence, but you knew that.


The license plate example was just to point out the wide variety of viewpoints people have regarding police actively searching for criminal behavior instead of waiting for it to land in their lap.
 
2013-04-11 09:41:56 AM
Put the bold away you attention whore.

The 'people' with the right to be secure is a growing group when you expose more people to your papers. When you give your info to jeff to give to paul and you know jeff has the ability to look at it, make a copy of it, etc, then it becomes jeffs info too.

Jeff has a right to the same security under the 4th but he, just like you or paul, doesn't need the permission of the other parties to share it with the government.

You don't have sole rights to privacy over things you share with others. I support google and other companies invoking their 4th amendment rights to keep the information you, perhaps foolishly, gave them. I hope they never lose the ability to say no to the government in this. I simply recognize yhat upon you giving the info to them it becomes their choice, not just yours.
 
2013-04-11 09:46:01 AM

lewismarktwo: Look the thing is this: if people KNOW they're being spied on and they are up to some actually nefarious shiat, they will stop leaving evidence.  shiatting on the fourth amendment should be reserved for people who actually cause harm to the union.


Wtf does this mean?

Are you saying so long as the criminals are bad then its ok to violate the 4th? I hope not.

The hundreds of billions in unpaid taxes each year hurt the union though, I guess you are good with the IRS "shiatting on" the 4th?
 
2013-04-11 10:19:18 AM

KrispyKritter: many of us have read IRS horror stories of people being jailed and all their possessions seized and sold - and later the IRS finds out they were in error. i've never read of anyone receiving an apology or compensation. Putin has nothing on the USA.


I haven't read any, but I hear them used as advertisements on Rush's show every day. "The IRS sent me a bill for $4 million, but TaxResolutionServices negotiated that down to two dollars seventy-five cents".
 
2013-04-11 10:27:13 AM

Smackledorfer: Put the bold away you attention whore.

The 'people' with the right to be secure is a growing group when you expose more people to your papers. When you give your info to jeff to give to paul and you know jeff has the ability to look at it, make a copy of it, etc, then it becomes jeffs info too.

Jeff has a right to the same security under the 4th but he, just like you or paul, doesn't need the permission of the other parties to share it with the government.

You don't have sole rights to privacy over things you share with others. I support google and other companies invoking their 4th amendment rights to keep the information you, perhaps foolishly, gave them. I hope they never lose the ability to say no to the government in this. I simply recognize yhat upon you giving the info to them it becomes their choice, not just yours.


So you're OK with your cell provider releasing your voicemails, because they exist on their equipment? Any voice mail that isn't on a physical answering machine would seem to fall under the same logic.
 
2013-04-11 10:34:40 AM

buzzcut73: Smackledorfer: Put the bold away you attention whore.

The 'people' with the right to be secure is a growing group when you expose more people to your papers. When you give your info to jeff to give to paul and you know jeff has the ability to look at it, make a copy of it, etc, then it becomes jeffs info too.

Jeff has a right to the same security under the 4th but he, just like you or paul, doesn't need the permission of the other parties to share it with the government.

You don't have sole rights to privacy over things you share with others. I support google and other companies invoking their 4th amendment rights to keep the information you, perhaps foolishly, gave them. I hope they never lose the ability to say no to the government in this. I simply recognize yhat upon you giving the info to them it becomes their choice, not just yours.

So you're OK with your cell provider releasing your voicemails, because they exist on their equipment? Any voice mail that isn't on a physical answering machine would seem to fall under the same logic.


Ok with? I would rather they didn't, but I can certainly see the argument that they had the right to.
 
2013-04-11 01:44:07 PM
so they've seen those pictures i sent to that girl on craigslist?
 
2013-04-11 01:59:16 PM

Arkanaut: BullBearMS: One thing not mentioned, is that several large internet services companies like Google and Microsoft have recently started telling all the various types of Federal officials to fark off and come back with a warrant instead of just handing your information over without one.

I was wondering about that.  If there isn't a warrant, are there any consequences that Google / MS / whichever ISP faces when they get hit with a request from the government? I feel like from a pure administrative burden perspective they might want to discourage the government from requesting information willy-nilly.


Fighting this sort of thing in the courts is quite expensive, but they already employ a large full time legal staff. It would be cost prohibitive for smaller firms, but some small ISP's have been known to spend a huge wad of their own money just because they want to do the right thing.
 
2013-04-11 03:14:34 PM

colon_pow: so they've seen those pictures i sent to that girl on craigslist?


Yeah, probably.

How YOU doin'?
 
2013-04-11 03:53:51 PM

Gyrfalcon: BullBearMS: Mr.Insightful: Honestly, I don't understand why it is so hard for people to understand this. Don't want people to be looking at your stuff? Then don't give it to other people to look at, dumbass!

So private communications between American citizens in the digital age are no longer allowed?

Or are you saying that everyone should be required to run their own personal fiber optic lines to each and every person you want to communicate with, since the Government isn't bound by the Fourth Amendment if you use the public internet?

No, it's that YOU don't understand what "private communications" means. Hint: It doesn't mean CONFIDENTIAL communication.

If I tell you something via spoken word, written word, email, semaphore, smoke signal, or carrier pigeon, it may be a private communication between the two of us in that it's something only the two of us want to talk about; but if we have carried out our conversation anywhere that a third party could reasonably have heard (seen, smelled or been shiat on by) our conversation, then we have NO EXPECTATION of privacy. The fact that we wanted it to be private is irrelevant.

i think this part gets glossed over a bit too easily.


So, as I expounded on probably too much above, since any third party could conceivably Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: your "private" email into the computers of people you never even heard of, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy as regards your email. Now, whether or not the hard drive your email is ON is subject to warrant requirements is another matter; and whether the printout of what is encoded in the hard drive should be subject to warrant hasn't really been tested in the courts yet. "Email" is kind of an ephemeral thing, after all, because it exists nowhere until it is read or printed. However, the fact remains that it could be forwarded completely without your knowledge or approval right into the IRS office if someone felt like it, so you have no expectation of privacy.

 
2013-04-11 04:59:05 PM

BlippityBleep: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Lavbit.com. My e-mail is stored encrypted to my passphrase. I'm more than happy for them to hand over a meaningless string of characters to anyone that wants a copy.

my voice is my passport, verify me?


Too many secrets.
 
2013-04-11 05:53:38 PM

fusillade762: 1) Why would the IRS want to read my email? I can't think of a single thing I send via email (or on Facebook, for that matter) that would be relevant to my tax situation.

2) Good luck! Considering all the stupid shiat I get, good luck sorting through all of it.


Small business correspondence with customers or suppliers, which the IRS might think suggests under-reporting of income or exaggeration of expenses.
 
2013-04-11 05:55:24 PM

inner ted: So, as I expounded on probably too much above, since any third party could conceivably Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: your "private" email into the computers of people you never even heard of, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy as regards your email. Now, whether or not the hard drive your email is ON is subject to warrant requirements is another matter; and whether the printout of what is encoded in the hard drive should be subject to warrant hasn't really been tested in the courts yet. "Email" is kind of an ephemeral thing, after all, because it exists nowhere until it is read or printed. However, the fact remains that it could be forwarded completely without your knowledge or approval right into the IRS office if someone felt like it, so you have no expectation of privacy.


By that reasoning there's no expectation of privacy in either first class mail or telephone conversations; the other party could photocopy or record, then forward.

FAIL.
 
2013-04-11 06:10:25 PM

AndreMA: inner ted: So, as I expounded on probably too much above, since any third party could conceivably Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: your "private" email into the computers of people you never even heard of, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy as regards your email. Now, whether or not the hard drive your email is ON is subject to warrant requirements is another matter; and whether the printout of what is encoded in the hard drive should be subject to warrant hasn't really been tested in the courts yet. "Email" is kind of an ephemeral thing, after all, because it exists nowhere until it is read or printed. However, the fact remains that it could be forwarded completely without your knowledge or approval right into the IRS office if someone felt like it, so you have no expectation of privacy.

By that reasoning there's no expectation of privacy in either first class mail or telephone conversations; the other party could photocopy or record, then forward.

FAIL.


i think you are attributing someone's comments to me - my only point was that her entire argument hinged on one word: REASONABLE

it's what our whole system is built on and i think what is 'reasonable' to some sure isn't to others
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report