LasersHurt: Is there any real link here, or are we just associating whatever we can to PRISM now for fun?
mamoru: I didn't think the 4th amendment specified "citizens" subby, but simply the people. IANAL or a constitutional scholar, but doesn't that suggest that it applies to anyone, even dem furriners, under US Jurisdiction?/someone correct me if I'm wrong; there may be case law showing it is only for citizens that I know nothing about
Aarontology: The 4th also doesn't say "unless they are foreigners, in which case there is no limitation on the government"
Notabunny: LasersHurt: Is there any real link here, or are we just associating whatever we can to PRISM now for fun?NSA to GWB : "The Fourth Amendment is as applicable to eSIGINT as it is to the SIGINT of yesterday and today," it wrote. "The Information Age will however cause us to rethink and reapply the procedures, policies and authorities born in an earlier electronic surveillance environment."GWB 10-26-01: "This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones. As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology. Investigations are often slowed by limit on the reach of federal search warrants."
SlothB77: You know, because of all the foreigners protected by the 4th AmendmentForeigners only, eh?[static.guim.co.uk image 850x394]see where the USA is shaded orange?
Bendal: LasersHurt: Is there any real link here, or are we just associating whatever we can to PRISM now for fun?I think there's a lot of confusion over what exactly "PRISM" is. The media appears to believe it's a program that collects data from all social media sources on whoever the government wants. That may have been the initial idea, but that's not what I've read what PRISM is now. The government tried to develop a program that could compile information from different media sources (Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc) so an army of analysts wouldn't have to do it for a particular person. That ended up being named PRISM. IIRC it hasn't been totally successful since all the media companies store their data in different ways and formats, but that's it.
Curious: in the last few years there have been repeated articles about cyber bullying and repeated use of "if it's on the internet ..." and yet people didn't connect that to any government use of the data? that picture the cops used of some "gangsta" to take him to trial and no one thought the government wasn't watching? WTF people.
BitwiseShift: Given the obstructionism in congress, Obama is quietly revealing "scandals" so the "outraged" Republicans will believe it's their idea to correct this.
icallhimgamblor: Fourth amendment - totally outdated because there was no internet back thenSecond amendment - completely applicable in today's world since we might get invaded by the British, see above statement.
vpb: One thing that people forget (or simply don't know) is that the 4th amendment doesn't prohibit searches, it only prohibits unreasonable searches. What is and isn't reasonable is decided by the courts, but until they don't decide until a case comes before them and in cases involving new technology there isn't going to be any case law to provide guidance.So a memo about the necessity of deciding how to apply the 4th amendment to the internet isn't especially surprising.
dittybopper: The problem is that now, it's much harder to determine that a particular pre-paid cell phone, or a particular gmail account, is actually used by a "United States Person". When FISA was written, anonymous phones and e-mail just didn't exist.
Callous: mamoru: I didn't think the 4th amendment specified "citizens" subby, but simply the people. IANAL or a constitutional scholar, but doesn't that suggest that it applies to anyone, even dem furriners, under US Jurisdiction?/someone correct me if I'm wrong; there may be case law showing it is only for citizens that I know nothing aboutYou're not wrong. If the Constitution only applied to citizens you could grab a tourist and send them through a woodchipper legally. Inalienable human rights and all that.
skullkrusher: Facebook stalking potential suspects really isn't the same thing.
Curious: skullkrusher: Facebook stalking potential suspects really isn't the same thing.specifically no. in general i'd say it was. if the NSA sweeps up your stuff from FB and then uses a computer to scan it for keywords it's just more efficient than having a person do it. and therefore can do more data. i have no real idea how good facial recognition software is but even if it produces false positives if the NSA is looking at FB and running it on "suspects" then they can make assumptions about groupings. even easier if Ahmed was tagged in his photo of his shinny new bomb vest.the defense by LEO that once you upload it you have no expectation of privacy isn't much different than what is being claimed by the NSA. we can quibble about when and even if who needs what warrants but to say that we are safe in the security of our electronic lives is misguided at best.
Phil Moskowitz: Sometimes you have to entirely dismantle the spirit and soul of a country in order to save it.
THX 1138: Well color me shocked. I assumed that people who hadn't yet taken their citizenship oath had no protection against quartering soldiers in their homes or being forced into slavery!/then again, if the Constitution only applies to Americans, then being exempt from federal income tax and being allowed to have alcohol during the prohibition years would've been pretty sweet for non-citizens.
skullkrusher: It is quite a bit different than who you call when.
Curious: yeah maybe. all the cop shows have them catching the bad guy by where the bad guy pinged a cell tower. this info is maintained by the service providers and available by subpoena. now some providers have fought turning over masses of data but it's there and we all know that in some circumstances its obtainable. now we are finding out the bar actually is pretty low.
skullkrusher: The fish stay in the boat
badaboom: but but Bush
Jake Havechek: See?We warned you guys about stuff like this, but you were too busy buying yellow ribbon magnets for your cars and Lee Greenwood tickets.
Snapper Carr: I'm sure someone has already swatted your nose about this, subby, but the rights set forth in the Constitutions, unless explicitly states otherwise (suffrage for example) apply to everyone residing in the United States, regardless, even if you're here illegally. SCOTUS made that ruling in 1886 back when the ethnic scapegoat du jour was Chinese
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 27 2017 14:08:27
Runtime: 0.375 sec (374 ms)