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)   In keeping up with the destruction of your 4th amendment rights, San Francisco District Federal Judge rules the FBI doesn't need warrants to order Google for account information   (news.cnet.com) divider line 68
    More: Obvious, San Francisco District Federal Judge, FBI, Google, NSLs, national security letter, federal judges, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, gag orders  
•       •       •

851 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 May 2013 at 1:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-31 12:44:47 PM  
Why does Eric Holder still have a job?
 
2013-05-31 12:49:32 PM  

cman: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?


Because most people don't care anymore. War on terror and whatnot.
 
2013-05-31 12:52:41 PM  
That's why my contact info is all some variation on "none ya business"

The only step to take after that would be to only access my google account via proxy, but ain't nobody got time for that.
 
2013-05-31 12:52:46 PM  
If they check my Google account, they'll see my war on spam. UltraFark is safe, right?
 
2013-05-31 12:59:19 PM  
This is why all of my communications are done via lower sideband on 27.195MHz, and only strings of numbers which require a one time pad to decipher.
 
2013-05-31 12:59:23 PM  

simplicimus: If they check my Google account, they'll see my war on spam. UltraFark is safe, right?


Nope

Ultrafark are google accounts
 
2013-05-31 01:03:46 PM  

cman: simplicimus: If they check my Google account, they'll see my war on spam. UltraFark is safe, right?

Nope

Ultrafark are google accounts


Now I'm curious what's in that account.
 
2013-05-31 01:04:35 PM  
Does this mean I have to quarter soldiers now?
 
2013-05-31 01:06:10 PM  

Sybarite: Does this mean I have to quarter soldiers now?


As we speak, the third armored division is taking up residence in your cache.
 
2013-05-31 01:06:28 PM  

Sybarite: Does this mean I have to quarter soldiers now?


That seems rather drastic. Besides, who has 4 horses?
 
2013-05-31 01:50:35 PM  
Which amendment do you think will last the longest? I'm thinking MAYBE 10, but I could see a bunch domino'ing at once.
 
2013-05-31 01:51:38 PM  

cman: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?


Because they haven't found anybody worse yet.
 
2013-05-31 01:54:08 PM  
San Francisco District Federal Judge rules the FBI doesn't need warrants to order Google for account information

FTFA: NSLs are controversial because they allow FBI officials to send secret requests to Web and telecommunications companies requesting "name, address, length of service," and other account information about users as long as it's relevant to a national security investigation. No court approval is required, and disclosing the existence of the FBI's secret requests is not permitted.

IOW: NSLs never required court approval, so the headline seems grossly inaccurate even by FARK standards.
 
2013-05-31 01:54:34 PM  

jjorsett: cman: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?

Because they haven't found anybody worse yet.


Cant tell the tone of your post, so I must ask, were you being serious or kidding with your statement?
 
2013-05-31 01:56:31 PM  

jjorsett: cman: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?

Because they haven't found anybody worse yet.


Not yet.  But there will be another Republican in the WH someday.
 
2013-05-31 01:57:15 PM  
Inaccurate stupid headline.  The judge didn't create any new laws or even any new interpretations of laws.  The applicable laws are on the books, passed by Congress several years ago under the Bush administration.  All the judge did was read the law, read the arguments and say "yup, that's the law".

A closer reading of the opinion reveals that what the judge actually said was that Google's general objection was too broad to be upheld (Google wanted to win by saying that the whole law was too broad and wrong), but that the court would be quite open to (and interested in receiving) a more specific objection to the 19 individual requests in question - which might well be successful.
 
2013-05-31 01:59:06 PM  

MichiganFTL: Which amendment do you think will last the longest? I'm thinking MAYBE 10, but I could see a bunch domino'ing at once.


The 10th seems to have been thoroughly gutted, already.

The 3rd is safest because it's archaic.
 
2013-05-31 02:00:30 PM  

simplicimus: That seems rather drastic. Besides, who has 4 horses?


That's the "drawing" part of "drawn and quartered." You just need a good knife for the quartering.

Lionel Mandrake: San Francisco District Federal Judge rules the FBI doesn't need warrants to order Google for account information

FTFA: NSLs are controversial because they allow FBI officials to send secret requests to Web and telecommunications companies requesting "name, address, length of service," and other account information about users as long as it's relevant to a national security investigation. No court approval is required, and disclosing the existence of the FBI's secret requests is not permitted.

IOW: NSLs never required court approval, so the headline seems grossly inaccurate even by FARK standards.


How so? She ruled that they are legal, she could have ruled that warrantless requests have no power. Instead, she said that Google had to comply, even though there was no warrant, hence "San Francisco District Federal Judge rules the FBI doesn't need warrants to order Google for account information." Seems about right to me. She didn't make the law, but she didn't strike it down, or even offer a temporary injunction waiting an appeal.
 
2013-05-31 02:01:27 PM  

cefm: Inaccurate stupid headline.  The judge didn't create any new laws or even any new interpretations of laws.  The applicable laws are on the books, passed by Congress several years ago under the Bush administration.  All the judge did was read the law, read the arguments and say "yup, that's the law".

A closer reading of the opinion reveals that what the judge actually said was that Google's general objection was too broad to be upheld (Google wanted to win by saying that the whole law was too broad and wrong), but that the court would be quite open to (and interested in receiving) a more specific objection to the 19 individual requests in question - which might well be successful.


RTFA requires effort.  Indignant outrage does not.
 
2013-05-31 02:02:42 PM  

cman: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?


Because liberals can't admit they're wrong.  Holder could be raping puppies with dead babies as long as he works for a guy with a D behind his name.
 
2013-05-31 02:04:52 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: cman: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?

Because liberals can't admit they're wrong.  Holder could be raping puppies with dead babies as long as he works for a guy with a D behind his name.


Congress is welcome to change the law regarding NSLs any time they want.
 
2013-05-31 02:05:06 PM  

cefm: The judge didn't create any new laws or even any new interpretations of laws.


The headline didn't state that she did. It said she ruled (which she did) that the FBI doesn't need a warrant (which apparently they don't) to order Google to turn over information (which she said they did).

What was inaccurate?
 
2013-05-31 02:08:36 PM  

nmrsnr: simplicimus: That seems rather drastic. Besides, who has 4 horses?

That's the "drawing" part of "drawn and quartered." You just need a good knife for the quartering.

Lionel Mandrake: San Francisco District Federal Judge rules the FBI doesn't need warrants to order Google for account information

FTFA: NSLs are controversial because they allow FBI officials to send secret requests to Web and telecommunications companies requesting "name, address, length of service," and other account information about users as long as it's relevant to a national security investigation. No court approval is required, and disclosing the existence of the FBI's secret requests is not permitted.

IOW: NSLs never required court approval, so the headline seems grossly inaccurate even by FARK standards.

How so? She ruled that they are legal, she could have ruled that warrantless requests have no power. Instead, she said that Google had to comply, even though there was no warrant, hence "San Francisco District Federal Judge rules the FBI doesn't need warrants to order Google for account information." Seems about right to me. She didn't make the law, but she didn't strike it down, or even offer a temporary injunction waiting an appeal.


Fair enough.  I guess it was trollish, not inaccurate.
 
2013-05-31 02:08:49 PM  

MichiganFTL: Which amendment do you think will last the longest? I'm thinking MAYBE 10, but I could see a bunch domino'ing at once.


The 10th amendment was shot to hell in about 1865 or so, at least from it's original intent/interpretations.  Personally, I think that it's better this way.
 
2013-05-31 02:11:42 PM  

cman: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?


Because after crafting the Patriot Act and successfully forcing Congress to pass it, he's obviously the most qualified for the job.
 
2013-05-31 02:11:46 PM  

MichiganFTL: Which amendment do you think will last the longest? I'm thinking MAYBE 10, but I could see a bunch domino'ing at once.


Given the broad interpretation of the interstate commerce and general welfare the 10th amendment is effectively useless. If anything the 16th will outlast us all
 
2013-05-31 02:13:47 PM  

cefm: Inaccurate stupid headline.  The judge didn't create any new laws or even any new interpretations of laws.


Nothing about the headline is inaccurate.  The judge made a ruling.
 
2013-05-31 02:21:16 PM  
If she's leaving the bench in July, maybe she wanted to hurry this one on to the next level. Who doesn't clean off their desk before going on vacation
 
2013-05-31 02:21:51 PM  

nmrsnr: How so? She ruled that they are legal, she could have ruled that warrantless requests have no power. Instead, she said that Google had to comply, even though there was no warrant, hence "San Francisco District Federal Judge rules the FBI doesn't need warrants to order Google for account information." Seems about right to me. She didn't make the law, but she didn't strike it down, or even offer a temporary injunction waiting an appeal.


I'm too lazy to research the point and provide specific citations, but I'm quite sure that there are appellate decisions on point which the trial court is obligated to follow. There's a reason why it's called "mandatory authority," you know,

In any event, there's no real Fourth Amendment issue here. It's long settled that one generally has no interest protected by the Fourth Amendment in information possessed by a third party - phone records, bank records, and so forth. Furthermore, the only real remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation is suppression in court, but a defendant may only assert a Fourth Amendment right over property or places in which the defendant has a possessory interest in the property or the place.

Personally, I wish the law in this area was very different than it is, but until I become king of the world we're stuck with the law provided by Congress and the appellate courts. The judge here had very few options.
 
2013-05-31 02:23:13 PM  
You never hear about activist judges in these sort of threads.
 
2013-05-31 02:24:06 PM  

cman: jjorsett: cman: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?

Because they haven't found anybody worse yet.

Cant tell the tone of your post, so I must ask, were you being serious or kidding with your statement?


Mostly kidding. I don't like Holder, and if he is replaced I'd like to see them go with somebody at least a little more in tune with basic constitutional principles like a free press, due process, secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects, etc. I'm not optimistic though. If Obama didn't like what Holder was doing, Holder would have been told to knock it off or he'd have been fired by now. I'm not even optimistic that a GOP president wouldn't pull this kind of crap, either. Chipping away at rights seems to be becoming endemic in DC.
 
2013-05-31 02:26:08 PM  
Lionel Mandrake:  IOW: NSLs never required court approval, so the headline seems grossly inaccurate even by FARK standards.

I reckon the headline is accurate enough as one sentence summaries of legal opinions go.  The statute says NSLs need no judicial action, but the statute is being challenged as unconstitutional.  The challenge is both facial (saying it is unconstitutional in every instance) and as applied (the particular NSLs challenged are unconstitutional).  So it is not obvious or a tautology: whether the FBI needs warrants is exactly the thing at issue.  But it is a mistake to suggest this judge is a fan of the NSL or a John Yoo style expansive reading of the executive power.

In the biggest earlier test of the NSL, the 2nd Circuit Ct of Appeals said there were constitutional deficiencies but that they could be cured if the statute was read with a "narrowing construction" to require the govt to jump through some additional hoops.  Basically a victory for the govt after the lower court held the provision that requires NSL recipients to keep silent was a prior restraint.

In a separate case this same Bay Area judge, Illston, gave the govt a gigantic biatch-slap two months ago, holding the NSL statute unconstitutional on its face and not subject to a narrowing construction as the 2d Cir had done.  Read the opinion here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/130610269/NSL-Order

That ruling is on appeal.  The judge said she was permitting the Google NSL's to go forward, with extra scrutiny, to as not to presume the outcome of the appeal.
 
2013-05-31 02:27:53 PM  

BMFPitt: MichiganFTL: Which amendment do you think will last the longest? I'm thinking MAYBE 10, but I could see a bunch domino'ing at once.

The 10th seems to have been thoroughly gutted, already.

The 3rd is safest because it's archaic.


Roundly violated in Boston with national guard staging areas plopped down on private properties without so much as a by-your-leave.
 
2013-05-31 02:29:09 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: cman: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?

Because liberals can't admit they're wrong.  Holder could be raping puppies with dead babies as long as he works for a guy with a D behind his name.


Sure, because these 'liberals' in your mind really love Holder's work thus far.
 
2013-05-31 02:29:54 PM  

BMulligan: In any event, there's no real Fourth Amendment issue here. It's long settled that one generally has no interest protected by the Fourth Amendment in information possessed by a third party - phone records, bank records, and so forth. Furthermore, the only real remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation is suppression in court, but a defendant may only assert a Fourth Amendment right over property or places in which the defendant has a possessory interest in the property or the place.


I agree, and if Google had wanted to comply, you and I would be screwed, but the 4th amendment question is what protection does Google have on our, or its own, behalf? Does Google have a right to not be forced to turn over internal documents except upon a warrant? I have no idea what the law says about corporations being people in that regard.
 
2013-05-31 02:37:31 PM  
www.myimportstore.com
 
2013-05-31 02:37:36 PM  

Ned Stark: BMFPitt: MichiganFTL: Which amendment do you think will last the longest? I'm thinking MAYBE 10, but I could see a bunch domino'ing at once.

The 10th seems to have been thoroughly gutted, already.

The 3rd is safest because it's archaic.

Roundly violated in Boston with national guard staging areas plopped down on private properties without so much as a by-your-leave.


You have a pretty broad definition of "house."
 
2013-05-31 02:40:49 PM  

jjorsett: If Obama didn't like what Holder was doing, Holder would have been told to knock it off or he'd have been fired by now. I'm not even optimistic that a GOP president wouldn't pull this kind of crap, either. Chipping away at rights seems to be becoming endemic in DC.


Both sides do appear to be equally bad.  Just take civil rights, for example.
 
2013-05-31 02:41:19 PM  

nmrsnr: Does Google have a right to not be forced to turn over internal documents except upon a warrant? I have no idea what the law says about corporations being people in that regard.


Oddly enough, the speech rights of corporations (the issue in Citizens United) is important here, because one of the bases for challenging NSLs is that the gag order that comes along with an NSL is a prior restraint on the speech of the corporation.  A law that presumptively says "you may not speak about this" is almost always an unconstitutional prior restraint unless applied only to one of the narrow categories of speech that is unprotected by the 1st Amdt.
 
2013-05-31 02:42:21 PM  
Startpage.com
 
2013-05-31 02:43:43 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Ned Stark: BMFPitt: MichiganFTL: Which amendment do you think will last the longest? I'm thinking MAYBE 10, but I could see a bunch domino'ing at once.

The 10th seems to have been thoroughly gutted, already.

The 3rd is safest because it's archaic.

Roundly violated in Boston with national guard staging areas plopped down on private properties without so much as a by-your-leave.

You have a pretty broad definition of "house."


The 3rd is basically useless anyway. It ends in "...but in a manner to be prescribed by law ". What the fark is the point of having an amendment that ends like that?
 
2013-05-31 02:44:12 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Ned Stark: BMFPitt: MichiganFTL: Which amendment do you think will last the longest? I'm thinking MAYBE 10, but I could see a bunch domino'ing at once.

The 10th seems to have been thoroughly gutted, already.

The 3rd is safest because it's archaic.

Roundly violated in Boston with national guard staging areas plopped down on private properties without so much as a by-your-leave.

You have a pretty broad definition of "house."


Front yards count. The how agreed, don't bother them about it.
 
2013-05-31 02:45:12 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Oddly enough, the speech rights of corporations (the issue in Citizens United) is important here, because one of the bases for challenging NSLs is that the gag order that comes along with an NSL is a prior restraint on the speech of the corporation.  A law that presumptively says "you may not speak about this" is almost always an unconstitutional prior restraint unless applied only to one of the narrow categories of speech that is unprotected by the 1st Amdt.


Given that this uses the phrase "national security" I imagine that they have that power.
 
2013-05-31 02:46:08 PM  

nmrsnr: BMulligan: In any event, there's no real Fourth Amendment issue here. It's long settled that one generally has no interest protected by the Fourth Amendment in information possessed by a third party - phone records, bank records, and so forth. Furthermore, the only real remedy for a Fourth Amendment violation is suppression in court, but a defendant may only assert a Fourth Amendment right over property or places in which the defendant has a possessory interest in the property or the place.

I agree, and if Google had wanted to comply, you and I would be screwed, but the 4th amendment question is what protection does Google have on our, or its own, behalf? Does Google have a right to not be forced to turn over internal documents except upon a warrant? I have no idea what the law says about corporations being people in that regard.


Again, though, they really don't have much of a remedy available. They're not the defendants, so they can't move to suppress. There is no general constitutional tort - I suppose Google could bring a 1983 action, but their measure of damages would be nominal.
 
2013-05-31 02:48:04 PM  

nmrsnr: 4tehsnowflakes:

Given that this uses the phrase "national security" I imagine that they have that power.


Whut?
 
2013-05-31 02:50:14 PM  

BMFPitt: MichiganFTL: Which amendment do you think will last the longest? I'm thinking MAYBE 10, but I could see a bunch domino'ing at once.

The 10th seems to have been thoroughly gutted, already.

The 3rd is safest because it's archaic.


I disagree. I think the 16th Amendment is the safest, despite what the Tea Party thinks.
 
2013-05-31 02:52:50 PM  

cman: Why does Eric Holder still have a job?


This is the republican party nowadays.  Judge makes a ruling I disagree with: "fark REFORM! BLAME OBAMA".  Don't you see how this undermines your position, not supports it?
 
2013-05-31 02:53:06 PM  
the government knows what is best for us.
we should not ask questions.
 
2013-05-31 02:58:28 PM  

BMulligan: Again, though, they really don't have much of a remedy available. They're not the defendants, so they can't move to suppress. There is no general constitutional tort - I suppose Google could bring a 1983 action, but their measure of damages would be nominal.


Suppression is irrelevant, do they have the right to refuse to cooperate? Even if they don't get damages, this is a constitutional issue that should be resolved by the Supreme Court. I can't imagine that businesses have to comply with any FBI order to turn over documents without warrant or subpoena, otherwise any FBI officer who really likes Coke could demand documents regarding their secret formula and they'd have no right to refuse.
 
2013-05-31 03:00:23 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: nmrsnr: 4tehsnowflakes:

Given that this uses the phrase "national security" I imagine that they have that power.

Whut?


Just saying that if the government says it's a national security issue, no judge is going to overturn that. It's a magic phrase that gets around oh so many of our constitutional rights nowadays.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report