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.

(Fox News)   In the 1760s, British soldiers could roam the countryside and search American homes at will, which is why Obama is a king who needs to be overthrown today. Or something. Hey, a judge wrote it so it's got to be true   (foxnews.com) divider line 124
    More: Stupid, Obama, Americans, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA Court, Thomas Paine, electronic records, countryside, bill of rights  
•       •       •

1396 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2013 at 8:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-14 08:35:05 AM
Snowden Crash.
 
2013-06-14 08:39:46 AM
As a card-carrying liberal, I'm still looking for the derp in TFA.  Maybe since it's early, but da judge sounded reasonable to me.

The analogy makes sense:

The modern-day British soldiers -- our federal agents -- are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives.
 
2013-06-14 08:40:54 AM
In 30 years, from 1979 to 2009, the legal standard for searching and seizing private communications -- the bar that the Constitution requires the government to meet -- was lowered by Congress from probable cause of crime to probable cause of being an agent of a foreign power to probable cause of being a foreign person to probable cause of communicating with a foreign person.

But, hey, it's legal!

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.

See?  Nothing in there about phone records or electronic correspondence.
 
2013-06-14 08:43:31 AM
I really don't get what the big deal is, the NSA is basically backing up the meta data the ISP and other service providers collect, but require a warrant to search it. They are also looking at foreign users of facebook, google+, and the 12 people that still use myspace, and I really don't think their should be an expectation to privacy for information on sites that are designed to help you whore yourself out to the rest of the world.

Now when the feds show up at my house and announce a random decency and morality inspection, and then force me into the back of a van over my "anime" collection then I'll be ready to revolt.

/brb doorbell...
 
2013-06-14 08:45:08 AM
I'm assuming, of course, he was just as offended by these practices in the 2000's, right.

sendtodave: See? Nothing in there about phone records or electronic correspondence.


Records that are in the hand of a 3rd party and records that the third party is free to (and regularly does) sell off to the highest bidder.
 
2013-06-14 08:47:18 AM
So, here's the relevant text:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Tell me again how this protects you from the government keeping tabs of your travel, communications, and other *public* activity?
 
2013-06-14 08:47:45 AM

Satanic_Hamster: I'm assuming, of course, he was just as offended by these practices in the 2000's, right.

sendtodave: See? Nothing in there about phone records or electronic correspondence.

Records that are in the hand of a 3rd party and records that the third party is free to (and regularly does) sell off to the highest bidder.


See? As long as there's corporate collusion to get around the Fourth Amendment, it's fine. because after all, gigantic multi-national corporations are your friends. Like with health insurance and worker's rights.
 
2013-06-14 08:48:38 AM

AliceBToklasLives: As a card-carrying liberal, I'm still looking for the derp in TFA.  Maybe since it's early, but da judge sounded reasonable to me.

The analogy makes sense:

The modern-day British soldiers -- our federal agents -- are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives.


Well, technically they're not going "from phone to phone" etc, they're going to a central location (or a few central locations) where phone & internet records are kept.  It's theoretically less intrusive; whether it's constitutional or moral, that's another question.
 
2013-06-14 08:49:02 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Records that are in the hand of a 3rd party and records that the third party is free to (and regularly does) sell off to the highest bidder.


Oh, well, that's OK then.

Wait, no, no, that's still bad.

Should people just not have any reasonable expectation of privacy any more if they interact at all with society?
 
2013-06-14 08:50:33 AM

Lexx: So, here's the relevant text:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Tell me again how this protects you from the government keeping tabs of your travel, communications, and other *public* activity?


I suppose some people would argue that's unreasonable.
 
2013-06-14 08:52:20 AM

Lexx: Tell me again how this protects you from the government keeping tabs of your travel, communications, and other *public* activity?


Like those anti-Hispanic papers please laws. Or New York's "Stop & Frisk the Minorities" laws.
 
2013-06-14 08:54:42 AM

sendtodave: Satanic_Hamster: Records that are in the hand of a 3rd party and records that the third party is free to (and regularly does) sell off to the highest bidder.

Oh, well, that's OK then.

Wait, no, no, that's still bad.

Should people just not have any reasonable expectation of privacy any more if they interact at all with society?


Read the damn EULA or your ToS, how can you expect privacy when you signed a big long contract giving it up?
 
2013-06-14 08:54:44 AM

AliceBToklasLives: As a card-carrying liberal, I'm still looking for the derp in TFA.  Maybe since it's early, but da judge sounded reasonable to me.

The analogy makes sense:

The modern-day British soldiers -- our federal agents -- are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives.


Do you think they liked my dick pics?  I always fluff before I walk through the body scanner at the airport, so that's covered.
 
2013-06-14 08:54:52 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Lexx: So, here's the relevant text:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Tell me again how this protects you from the government keeping tabs of your travel, communications, and other *public* activity?

I suppose some people would argue that's unreasonable.


Or that electronic correspondent falls under "papers and effects."
 
2013-06-14 08:57:14 AM

robotpirateninja: sendtodave: Satanic_Hamster: Records that are in the hand of a 3rd party and records that the third party is free to (and regularly does) sell off to the highest bidder.

Oh, well, that's OK then.

Wait, no, no, that's still bad.

Should people just not have any reasonable expectation of privacy any more if they interact at all with society?

Read the damn EULA or your ToS, how can you expect privacy when you signed a big long contract giving it up?


I don't believe that shrink-wrap or click-wrap licensing of TOS should be legally binding, either.
 
2013-06-14 08:59:57 AM
What offended the colonists when the soldiers came legally knocking was the violation of their natural right to privacy, their right to be left alone.

Not being left alone no longer offends anyone, it seems.
 
2013-06-14 08:59:59 AM
Snowden is so proud to be American, he committed treason and then ran to the Chinese for safety.
 
2013-06-14 09:00:55 AM

WTF Indeed: Snowden is so proud to be American, he committed treason and then ran to the Chinese for safety.


Do you feel that this program is in line with American ideals?
 
2013-06-14 09:02:07 AM

AliceBToklasLives: As a card-carrying liberal, I'm still looking for the derp in TFA.  Maybe since it's early, but da judge sounded reasonable to me.

The analogy makes sense:

The modern-day British soldiers -- our federal agents -- are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives.


This is the part that was, for me, the most telling

How did that happen? In response to the practice of President Richard Nixon of dispatching FBI and CIA agents to wiretap his adversaries under the guise of looking for foreign subversives, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) in 1978. It prohibited all domestic surveillance in the U.S., except if authorized by a judge based on probable cause of crime, or if authorized by a judge of the newly created and super-secret FISA court. That court was empowered to issue warrants based not on probable cause of crime, but on probable cause of the target being an agent of a foreign power. The slippery slope began. Soon the feds made thousands of applications for search warrants to this secret court every year; and 99 percent of them were granted. The court is so secret that the judges who sit on it are not permitted to keep records of their decisions. Notwithstanding the ease with which the feds got what they wanted from the FISA court, Congress lowered the standard again from probable cause of being an agent of a foreign power to probable cause of being a foreign person. After 9/11, Congress enacted the Patriot Act. This permitted federal agents to write their own search warrants, as if to mimic the British soldiers in the 1760s. It was amended to permit the feds to go to the FISA court and get a search warrant for the electronic records of any American who might communicate with a foreign person. In 30 years, from 1979 to 2009, the legal standard for searching and seizing private communications -- the bar that the Constitution requires the government to meet -- was lowered by Congress from probable cause of crime to probable cause of being an agent of a foreign power to probable cause of being a foreign person to probable cause of communicating with a foreign person. Congress made all these changes, notwithstanding the oath that each member of Congress took to uphold the Constitution. It is obvious that the present standard, probable cause of communicating with a foreign person, bears no rational or lawful resemblance to the constitutionally mandated standard: probable cause of crime. Now we know that the feds have seized the telephone records of more than 100 million Americans and the email and texting records of nearly everyone in the U.S. for a few years. They have obtained this under the laws that permit them to do so. These laws -- just like the ones that let British soldiers write their own search warrants -- were validly enacted, but they are profoundly unconstitutional.
 
2013-06-14 09:03:18 AM
If this were still Bush, the Fox "News" team would be pulling out all the stops to justify the activities.
 
2013-06-14 09:03:18 AM
What are you guys so worried about anyway?  The troops protect our freedom.  I'm sure they'll put a stop to this.
 
2013-06-14 09:03:22 AM

Satanic_Hamster: I'm assuming, of course, he was just as offended by these practices in the 2000's, right.


He''s actually been pretty consistent--He critcized Bush's warrantless wiretapping.
 
2013-06-14 09:03:45 AM

Aarontology: Like those anti-Hispanic papers please laws. Or New York's "Stop & Frisk the Minorities" laws.


What I SAID was:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures would seem to cover the anti-hispanic "papers please" and the NYC "stop & frisk" laws.  THOSE laws are definitely unconstitutional.  Snooping the post office and phone company isn't.
 
2013-06-14 09:04:05 AM

robotpirateninja: Read the damn EULA or your ToS, how can you expect privacy when you signed a big long contract giving it up?


Much (or some) of that is unenforceable. They have their lawyers draw up the paperwork as best they can, but it's not bulletproof by a long shot (even outside the EU). Like the waiver you sign before skiing or skydiving, it's meant to make you think you've signed away your rights, when in actuality, you can't sign all of them away, ever.
 
2013-06-14 09:04:39 AM

clancifer: If this were still Bush, the Fox "News" team would be pulling out all the stops to justify the activities.


Maybe.  Does that matter?
 
2013-06-14 09:06:15 AM

Arkanaut: AliceBToklasLives: As a card-carrying liberal, I'm still looking for the derp in TFA.  Maybe since it's early, but da judge sounded reasonable to me.

The analogy makes sense:

The modern-day British soldiers -- our federal agents -- are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives.

Well, technically they're not going "from phone to phone" etc, they're going to a central location (or a few central locations) where phone & internet records are kept.  It's theoretically less intrusive; whether it's constitutional or moral, that's another question.


Sure - it's not 1789 so the analogy is not perfect.  But the NSA stuff does not seem to follow the spirit of the 4th Amendment.

/I realize that there isn't a bunch of spooks sitting in a subterranean office spending all day watching my every move (and if there were, they would be the true victims).
//And I have no problem with the govt. collecting my information if they truly have probable cause that I'm up to no good - it's the sweeping nature of the data collection I find disturbing and (for that matter) unproductive (It's like Cheney asking for raw intelligence data).
///Anyways, I've been waiting for Bengazi-level right-wing outrage over this, so I like TFA
 
2013-06-14 09:07:30 AM
Well the first third of the article is pure emotional drivel, but later he does lay out a pretty clear path starting with Nixon, then 9/11 and the PATRIOT act, and then he lays the blame where it belongs: on Congress.  It's really not a bad article.
 
2013-06-14 09:08:27 AM

sendtodave: Or that electronic correspondent falls under "papers and effects."


If folks are going to insist that assault rifles, which didn't exist in the 1700s, fall under "arms," then I think electronic communication, which didn't exist in the 1700s, should fall under "papers and effects."
 
2013-06-14 09:09:18 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Records that are in the hand of a 3rd party and records that the third party is free to (and regularly does) sell off to the highest bidder.


Does this 3rd party have the ability to detain you, throw you in jail, freeze your bank account, etc?
 
2013-06-14 09:09:21 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Warshak

United States v. Warshak is a criminal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit holding that government agents violated the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights by compelling his Internet Service Provider (ISP) to turn over his emails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause. However, constitutional violation notwithstanding, the evidence obtained with these emails was admissible at trial because the government agents relied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (SCA). The court further declared that the SCA is unconstitutional to the extent that it allows the government to obtain emails without a warrant.[1]
This case is notable because it is the first court from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to explicitly hold that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of e-mails stored on third party servers and that the content of these emails is subject to Fourth Amendment protection.[1]
 
2013-06-14 09:10:02 AM
I'm having a hard time keeping all this stuff straight. Now, am I suppose to be mad at Fartbongo because he controls Verizon? Am I suppose to applaud Snowden because he's kinda like a cop? Or is he a bad guy because he used to work for the government and 'the troops' are the only Government employees that matter? If the consumers clicked 'I agree" or signed away their rights in a service agreement, does it matter that the government wants to look at my personal information... as opposed to private corporation data mining and selling it? Boehner says Snowden is a traitor, so I'm pretty torn. Hopefully, this Fox News device can tell me how a True American™ needs to feel about all this.
 
2013-06-14 09:10:29 AM

sendtodave: See? Nothing in there about phone records or electronic correspondence.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
 
2013-06-14 09:10:54 AM

clancifer: If this were still Bush, the Fox "News" team would be pulling out all the stops to justify the activities.


Well, this is a true statement.  It doesn't really justify the state of affairs, though.

In my opinion, this issue hinges on several important concepts--The PRISM program in and of itself probably being the least interesting, if only because I guess I have always assumed we would have this sort of capability:

1. The steady redefinition of what constitutes "probable cause" as a basis for searches.
2. How the 4th amendment protections apply to new forms of communication that were never imagined during its writing.
3. Where the line between public and private information lies.
4. Where the line of ownership to data about individuals, generated and held by other entities, lies.
 
2013-06-14 09:11:53 AM

Lexx: the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures would seem to cover the anti-hispanic "papers please" and the NYC "stop & frisk" laws.


Then it should also cover "being in public" since you mentioned travel, communications and "public" activity.

I understand the inherent lessened sense of privacy, but merely being in public shouldn't be considered reason to have the authorities able to basically ignore the Fourth Amendment. not should employing modern necessary communications methods be considered "reasonable" to search.
 
2013-06-14 09:12:00 AM
Know who else could search American homes at will?

upload.wikimedia.org

Nihil novi sub sole.
 
2013-06-14 09:13:03 AM

sendtodave: Do you feel that this program is in line with American ideals?


Considering that the program is used specifically for International communications, and that all requests for American records must be approved by a court, and then given to the FBI. I believe this program is in line with American law. Is the program itself odd because of its size and ability? Yes. Does it make people think about how easy it is to control all that data? Yes. However countries like China, which are a police state, have been controlling data for years. Snowden and people like him think the government will one day switch from being a representative democracy to a massive police state with secret police and retraining camps. They've consumed so much media that tells it's only a matter of time that they are unable to think clearly about a senario that would require hundreds of improbable things happening in an improbable order and assumes a population will willingly go along with anything(Something that flies in face of recorded human history).

The people that think the government is lying to them about plots stopped and terrorists arrested because of this program and others like it would not believe it if the government told them the sky was blue.
 
2013-06-14 09:13:40 AM

clancifer: If this were still Bush, the Fox "News" team would be pulling out all the stops to justify the activities.


Napolitano has always been an oddman out on Fox since he has always had pretty much the same stance and was even very critical of Bush
 
2013-06-14 09:13:54 AM

roddack: sendtodave: See? Nothing in there about phone records or electronic correspondence.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people


But, you see, a right to privacy in electronic correspondence isn't a right retained by the people, because Google.
 
2013-06-14 09:14:24 AM

Dr Dreidel: robotpirateninja: Read the damn EULA or your ToS, how can you expect privacy when you signed a big long contract giving it up?

Much (or some) of that is unenforceable. They have their lawyers draw up the paperwork as best they can, but it's not bulletproof by a long shot (even outside the EU). Like the waiver you sign before skiing or skydiving, it's meant to make you think you've signed away your rights, when in actuality, you can't sign all of them away, ever.


Some people seem to have their weird impression that a EULA can do anything, like they would be surprised if you couldn't enforce terms of a EULA where the user agreed that the company could shoot them in the head point blank with a shotgun in case they ever got fed up with someone that called user support with the same stupid questions over and over.

/which is a shame really, some days
 
2013-06-14 09:15:00 AM
What someone going around the countryside searching homes at will might look like:

content8.flixster.com
 
2013-06-14 09:15:28 AM

WTF Indeed: sendtodave: Do you feel that this program is in line with American ideals?

 I believe this program is in line with American law.


Americans ideals, American law, same thing, I guess.
 
2013-06-14 09:15:36 AM
Do you want the King of England to show up and start pushing you around?
img842.imageshack.us
Huh? DO YA?!?!??!
 
2013-06-14 09:15:57 AM
"Let me be clear. Courts already allow warrants under our fourth amendment. It is totally constitutional. It has been held so almost from the beginning of this country; some will say from the beginning of this country.

"I would like to talk concretely about the loss of liberty of almost 6,000 people because of the terrorist acts on September 11. I am a little bit more concerned right now about their loss of life. I am even more concerned now that they have lost their lives that thousands of other Americans don't lose their lives because we fail to act and fail to give law enforcement the tools that are essential. In addition to protecting civil liberties, give law enforcement the tools they need so we, to the extent we possibly can, will be able to protect our citizens from events and actions such as happened on September 11."

--Orrin Hatch (D-UT), on the Patriot Act
 
2013-06-14 09:16:25 AM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: sendtodave: Or that electronic correspondent falls under "papers and effects."

If folks are going to insist that assault rifles, which didn't exist in the 1700s, fall under "arms," then I think electronic communication, which didn't exist in the 1700s, should fall under "papers and effects."


I quoted you so people will see this twice
 
2013-06-14 09:18:24 AM

WTF Indeed: Considering that the program is used specifically for International communications, and that all requests for American records must be approved by a court, and then given to the FBI.


But why is communicating with a foreigner a reasonable standard to grant a warrant?

And where did you get this description of the scope of the program?  I was under the impression that all US to foreign metadata was being collected. Period.  The court only came in if the content was of interest.

But that's my interpretation of what, admittedly, is a pretty murky picture.
 
2013-06-14 09:20:06 AM

snowshovel: "Let me be clear. Courts already allow warrants under our fourth amendment. It is totally constitutional. It has been held so almost from the beginning of this country; some will say from the beginning of this country.

"I would like to talk concretely about the loss of liberty of almost 6,000 people because of the terrorist acts on September 11. I am a little bit more concerned right now about their loss of life. I am even more concerned now that they have lost their lives that thousands of other Americans don't lose their lives because we fail to act and fail to give law enforcement the tools that are essential. In addition to protecting civil liberties, give law enforcement the tools they need so we, to the extent we possibly can, will be able to protect our citizens from events and actions such as happened on September 11."

--Orrin Hatch (D-UT), on the Patriot Act


Graah.

Our "civil liberties" are our greatest protection from harm.
 
2013-06-14 09:21:54 AM

sendtodave: Americans ideals, American law, same thing, I guess.


American ideals and American law are the same thing. Laws agreed upon by a majority of the populace or their representatives was a major basis for America.  Ensuring that the government has checks and balances is an American Ideal. This program has it. What you and other people think is that the government is one massive entity built to work harmoniously with itself to crush the freedoms of the populace.  One look at Congress would destroy that idea in a heartbeat.
 
2013-06-14 09:22:12 AM

MugzyBrown: Satanic_Hamster: Records that are in the hand of a 3rd party and records that the third party is free to (and regularly does) sell off to the highest bidder.

Does this 3rd party have the ability to detain you, throw you in jail, freeze your bank account, etc?


Are we talking Google, or Halliburton?
 
2013-06-14 09:23:44 AM
Was he cool with it when Bush/Cheney implemented it?
 
2013-06-14 09:24:06 AM

WTF Indeed: American ideals and American law are the same thing.


What a scary thought.  And also absurd.

If that were true, no law would ever be found to be unconstitutional.
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report