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 34
    More: Stupid, Obama, Americans, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA Court, Thomas Paine, electronic records, countryside, bill of rights  
•       •       •

1395 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-14 08:39:46 AM
6 votes:
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 08:47:45 AM
5 votes:

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 08:54:42 AM
3 votes:

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 08:43:31 AM
3 votes:
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 09:28:36 AM
2 votes:

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


It's not communicating with any foreigner.  It's communicating with a foreigner under surveillance.  The NSA tracks foreigners outside of the country and when someone in America attempts to communicate with them it falls under the purview of the FBI. When they request records of Americans, it's no difference between when the police pull your phone records in a criminal matter.  People are frightened by the scope of it all, when in reality it's not the difficult.

This really comes down to people not knowing what a Police State actually looks and feels like. A good rule of thumb is that if someone in America tells you that we live in a Police State you should stop listening to that person because they are crazy.
2013-06-14 09:11:53 AM
2 votes:

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 09:10:02 AM
2 votes:
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 12:25:45 PM
1 votes:
Here's the problem. Since the late 1980s, the courts have pretty much sided with businesses that you cede your right to privacy when you are under their auspices. It is perfectly legal for your company to demand your pee as a condition of employment. They can fire you for something you do on your own time if it shows up in the pee that the courts let them demand.

Got high at a concert two Saturdays before your random drug test, but you don't ever get high at work? It doesn't matter. The courts have sided with businesses that you can be fired. Do something perfectly legal on your own property like smoking a cigarette? The courts say a business can fire you. Open your personal email at work on your office computer? The company is allowed to access those emails - legally.

You essentially lose all your privacy anytime you do anything outside your home. The internet is public, so guess what? It doesn't matter if you're using your computer or phone in your home. What you do on it is public. Hell, you don't even own anything you buy off of iTunes. You're renting it, and you continue to listen to it at Apple's pleasure. If Apple agrees to hand it over to the government, you do not get any say other than to never use iTunes. Does this suck? Certainly. Is it legal. Yes.

After the Patriot Act, your local librarian has to turn over all your information if the government asks for it, and if the librarian tries to alert you, he can be jailed. Your library records are not considered private. They are public. The information on your itemized phone bill is also considered public. (The content of your calls is not, even though from 2001 to 2006, your government acted under the assumption it was and collected recordings of all calls. Not the metadata. The calls. One of the arguments I heard for this is that utilities are public, so it was fair game. No one listened to every call. They just collected them. You know, in case they needed them later.)

And then there's PRISM. Supposedly, this is only used for people using the internet to contact foreign people. But what, exactly does that mean? If you're on a site like Fark, and you interact with a Farker who lives outside the United States, can you now be monitored? My guess is "Yes." Based on what we allow businesses to do with information you consider private, why would the government have less power? Why would you trust all businesses more than your government?
2013-06-14 10:29:57 AM
1 votes:

Silly_Sot: Well, silly me. I had no idea that FISA and the secret "special courts" (do you know who ELSE had "Sondersgerichten"?) were NOT part of the government. I had no idea that the NSA was NOT part of the government. I had no idea that it was NOT the government performing all this privacy violation. How SILLY of me to think that courts and the NSA are part of the US government.


Um, You know that all they're doing is asking for the private corporations who already have all this information about you to ... you know ... share their data ... right? It's not like the Government is peering through your window ... or following you down a street ... or reading your mail ...  What's happened is that you've already hired people to bring you stuff and take stuff from you and bring it to third parties. These vendors are already cataloging you and profiling you and selling your data to companies whose sole job is to get you to BUY MORE CRAP. They're also deciding which things you DO NOT get to see, based on your level of income, background (which they've each inferred from your activity, or traded with each other for money) ...

And then you get upset when the feds want to look over the records of known internationals ...  built by the same vendors you use ... ?

Interesting side fact: The puritans that founded Boston wanted laws that outlawed curtains and shutters so that people could spy on each other through their windows...
2013-06-14 10:19:54 AM
1 votes:

Silly_Sot: 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.

There is no derp. The problem is that liberalism is a mental disorder, which inserts the hallucination of derp into anything that is not from a party-approved source. You see, it's only wrong if Bush did it, but it becomes right now that Obama is doing it. That's how liberals think. You still want to be identified with them.

PS: The mental disorder of liberalism also forces its sufferers to immediately conclude that anyone who doesn't blindly swallow all their delusions must automatically be suffering from a delusion of equal and opposite effect. Thus, daring to point out their insanity immediately unleashes a barrage of accusations of membership in the Ku Klux Klan or similar organizations.


Well, you're from Indiana, so we're making a reasonable assumption.
2013-06-14 09:57:58 AM
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: The Washington Post, the other paper Snowden gave info to, actually did some reporting on the program and spelled out how it worked.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining- da ta-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/ 3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_3.html

Interesting report.  They describe the metadata collection program as "Blarney" and the actual capture of content as "Prism", but stress that the latter program is described by officials, politicians and even NSA training manuals as targeted at foreign communications that just happen to flow through the US servers.
And that all procedures were approved by courts.

However, that aside, they still admit that large (but unquantified) amounts of domestic communications are captured inadvertently.  It's not clear what happens to this data, or even if there is a procedure in place to scrub inappropriate data from the records.

Interesting.
2013-06-14 09:57:53 AM
1 votes:

sendtodave: Our "civil liberties" are our greatest protection from harm.


A violent reaction to the violation of one's natural rights is a better protection.

Lets face it: politicians, tyrants and conmen (tho I repeat myself) don't fear the written law. They create it, they control it, and they know how to wiggle through the loopholes. They know how to choose words carefully to avoid running afoul of it. Their arguments will always stand when a Judge is forced to consult a dictionary instead of his own moral compass.

What they fear is an unreasonable public that no longer heeds the letter of the law but enforces the spirit of it.
We believe in a right to privacy. So whether its shutting the bathroom door or being secure in our email conversations, we expect that to be respected by everyone.  If we feel someones violating that then we should vote, protest, or rebel based on those feelings.

If we did this more often, it wouldn't matter that a politician says "The constitution didn't mention text messages...".   They'd still get a public cashiering for not understanding what a violation of privacy means to their constituents.

Our reaction to being violated is what makes civil rights matter. Not the rights themselves.
Recently I don't think we've been reacting enough to the outrageous things that Washington has done.
2013-06-14 09:50:57 AM
1 votes:

WTF Indeed: sendtodave: So, that is the main distinction, then?

Being able to speak against the government means you are not living in a police state?  That's it?

Yup, you're right. China is just like America. Just without due process, free speech, access to a free press, freedom of religion, and access to a non-government view of history.


I predict that China will become more free; it has to.

I predict the US will become less free; it wants to.
2013-06-14 09:48:36 AM
1 votes:
Hey, a judge wrote it so it's got to be true

Let me guess, Napolitano?

*clicks link*

Yup.

Lest anyone forget, this is the nutjob who warned about Obama's private army via Obamacare.
2013-06-14 09:24:06 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-06-14 09:14:24 AM
1 votes:

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 09:13:54 AM
1 votes:

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 09:13:03 AM
1 votes:

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 09:12:00 AM
1 votes:
Know who else could search American homes at will?

upload.wikimedia.org

Nihil novi sub sole.
2013-06-14 09:10:54 AM
1 votes:

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 09:10:29 AM
1 votes:

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 09:08:27 AM
1 votes:

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 09:07:30 AM
1 votes:
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 09:04:05 AM
1 votes:

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 09:03:22 AM
1 votes:

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 09:03:18 AM
1 votes:
If this were still Bush, the Fox "News" team would be pulling out all the stops to justify the activities.
2013-06-14 09:02:07 AM
1 votes:

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 09:00:55 AM
1 votes:

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 08:57:14 AM
1 votes:

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 08:52:20 AM
1 votes:

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 08:48:38 AM
1 votes:

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 08:47:18 AM
1 votes:
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 08:40:54 AM
1 votes:
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 08:35:05 AM
1 votes:
Snowden Crash.
 
Displayed 34 of 34 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report