Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Washington Post)   SCOTUS: You know we might have to discuss how the Constitution applies to stuff like say your cell phone, you know like the Fourth Amendment   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 148
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, supreme courts, fourth amendment, amendments, cell phones, organizations, counter-terrorism, Nick Stahl  
•       •       •

3644 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Aug 2013 at 12:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-05 01:39:02 PM  
The simple fact is that the data collected *about* you is not your data, its the phone company's. They collect it as a needed business function. You contract with them to do business. If you have a problem with them sharing your data, they are your problem.
 
2013-08-05 01:39:20 PM  
The NSA has recorded everything the members of the Supreme Court have said and written, so they'll vote the way the NSA wants.
 
2013-08-05 01:39:44 PM  

SurfaceTension: Your phone call is basically like sending a letter through the mail. It is absolutely illegal to open a letter and examine its contents, but if one wants to make the effort, they can examine the envelope of the letter and determine its source, its destination, whether its registered, the stamp that's affixed, how thick the envelope is, etc.


It's possible to send a letter almost completely anonymously, however. There's no requirement to put a return address on the envelope and you can send the letter from anywhere. So you have to add to it that it is always known what the originating address of the sender is, regardless of which post office it was postmarked at.
=Smidge=
 
2013-08-05 01:40:54 PM  

SurfaceTension: I'm going to start off with saying that this justification for collection of metadata is NOT one that I agree with. However, I can see where an argument can be made for this view:

Your phone call is basically like sending a letter through the mail. It is absolutely illegal to open a letter and examine its contents, but if one wants to make the effort, they can examine the envelope of the letter and determine its source, its destination, whether its registered, the stamp that's affixed, how thick the envelope is, etc.

I'm wondering what people think about that?


The difference being that the government does not create a copy of the content of the envelope and store it away for potential future use..
 
2013-08-05 01:42:30 PM  

qorkfiend: Explodo: Bontesla: Tom_Slick: I'm curious, if your phone has a pass code, do agencies still search it without a warrant? Is that going to be the dividing line?

I've seen that argument before. The court (a US court) ordered that without a warrant - a suspect could not be compelled to provide his password.

I can't remember any details beyond that...


In all likelihood LEOs don't need your password.  All they need is your SIM card and that fancy little reader the NSA sold them.  Stored your data in the phones memory?  Oh, watch this then...(plugs it in)  Tah-dah!  all your data...

The only way to avoid that would be to have your very own OS on your phone so that you could encrypt EVERYTHING on the phone well below OS level.  Maybe there's already one out there.  Currently our government does their damnedest to make sure that you're not allowed to do that though.

Imagine how hard the government would work to make it so that you cannot have a phone that NEVER connects to anything without your explicitly telling it to do so and is fully encrypted.  It's already clear that turning the phone off is not a deterrent to being tracked as they can turn it back on remotely or just put it in surveillance mode so that it listens for them.  You'd have to pull the battery all the time, and some phones don't even have that option.

The question then becomes: can you be compelled to give up the encryption key?


2.bp.blogspot.com

/hot, like Subby's sister
 
2013-08-05 01:43:45 PM  

Weaver95: nmrsnr: dittybopper: But the point is that with the location metadata, I can build up the most scarily accurate profile of you.  I can tell where you live, where you work, who your friends and family are, where you like to shop, where  you like to eat, and all manner of other things.  I can tell if you have a lead foot, or even if you own a car, ride the bus, walk, or ride a bike*.  Based upon where you go, I can get a pretty accurate estimate of what you make.  I can tell where you go to church, if you do, and I can even tell which bars you like to frequent.   Based upon proximity to you, I can tell who your co-workers are, and your friends.  And I can build up relationship maps.  I bet I could even tell you, with a fair degree of accuracy, who is sleeping with who.

Yup, data mining is pretty awesome. I can also decide to turn my phone off, or leave it at home unless I absolutely need it. That's the crux of the "it's not a search" argument, all of that information is given voluntarily to a third party (the phone company) for the convenience of their service.

I think the best way to explain this to moron legislators and tech stupid judges is to run a metadata analysis on them using about a months worth of data.

Then see if they like the results. If they don't like it, then maybe they'll do something about it.


I still don't see them caring. You're asking them to find rationale behind securing that which we give away freely. See: any social media. Any app used depends upon metadata produced by the device. You click "yes" on that stuff all the time, knowing and expecting people on your friends list to see it, the places you check into to see it, and 3rd parties to buy it from the app developer.

I think it's going to take a serious counter-movement to reclaim any sense of privacy in today's world.
 
2013-08-05 01:44:48 PM  

Weaver95: I'm going to just go ahead and assume I don't have any rights anymore.


Nope, you still have the right to a spiffy semi-automatic rifle or handgun with high capacity magazine because:

Kibbler: Please remember that automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines are not new technology


So there!
 
2013-08-05 01:46:06 PM  

dragonfire77: I find it hysterical that the same people who scream and whine about privacy freely give out their likes and dislikes, their political and religious affiliations, medical disorders, gender, address, phone #, inner most thoughts, relationship status, and current GPS location (FB "Check-in" feature anyone?) via social media all so that they can share with the world when they've eaten a pizza, and wiped their kids' butts.  But we need privacy, right?

Note to the people like this:  PRIVACY != ANONYMITY


I got three passports, a couple of visas.

Don't even know my real name.
 
2013-08-05 01:46:30 PM  

Surool: It's almost as if this is the exact 'slippery slope' that people warned about when the patriot act was first passed...


If I've learned one thing from Fark, it's that the 'slippery-slope' argument is a logical fallacy.
 
2013-08-05 01:47:23 PM  

Saiga410: qorkfiend:
The question then becomes: can you be compelled to give up the encryption key?

Yes, but only by court order.


Wait, it is not that easy.
 
2013-08-05 01:48:23 PM  

dragonfire77: I find it hysterical that the same people who scream and whine about privacy freely give out their likes and dislikes, their political and religious affiliations, medical disorders, gender, address, phone #, inner most thoughts, relationship status, and current GPS location (FB "Check-in" feature anyone?) via social media all so that they can share with the world when they've eaten a pizza, and wiped their kids' butts.  But we need privacy, right?

Note to the people like this:  PRIVACY != ANONYMITY


That actually creates a huge problem all its own. There's so much data the NSA is capable of collecting and storing, but few analysts by comparison. People have gotten to thinking that working for the NSA means "analyst," but that's not the case. There are many custodians in the intel analysis chain, but only a few of them actually look at raw data and perform queries in proportion to all the raw data which exists.

So the NSA can look at anything you do, and store it for damn near forever if a lawyer gets a FISC judge's say-so, but who's looking at it? Who's qualified to analyze it and make a proper call on the data?That's a big gray area.
 
2013-08-05 01:49:48 PM  

dragonfire77: I find it hysterical that the same people who scream and whine about privacy freely give out their likes and dislikes, their political and religious affiliations, medical disorders, gender, address, phone #, inner most thoughts, relationship status, and current GPS location (FB "Check-in" feature anyone?) via social media all so that they can share with the world when they've eaten a pizza, and wiped their kids' butts.  But we need privacy, right?

Note to the people like this:  PRIVACY != ANONYMITY



I hate the whole focus of the debate.  No one seems to have any problem with private corporations data mining the shiat out of people, it's only when government tries to catch criminals it somehow becomes "intrusive."  Never mind it all comes from the same EULA people mindlessly click through.

The NSA doesn't care how many times a day you take a shiat, but I bet Google analytics  does.  Private industry has powerful incentives to keep as much data on individual profiles as possible and to do with it as they please  -- government has the exact opposite incentive.  They need to discriminate between useful data to catch criminals and noise.

At the bottom of it all is just more anti-government paranoia.  While the real power in America, money and corporations, get a free pass to do as much "spying" as they like.
 
2013-08-05 01:50:52 PM  

Giltric: dragonfire77: I find it hysterical that the same people who scream and whine about privacy freely give out their likes and dislikes, their political and religious affiliations, medical disorders, gender, address, phone #, inner most thoughts, relationship status, and current GPS location (FB "Check-in" feature anyone?) via social media all so that they can share with the world when they've eaten a pizza, and wiped their kids' butts.  But we need privacy, right?

Note to the people like this:  PRIVACY != ANONYMITY

I got three passports, a couple of visas.

Don't even know my real name.


Gilberto Di Piento
 
2013-08-05 01:51:00 PM  
"Let me tell ya a little something about rights.  You don't have rights.  What you have is a bunch of temporarily administered priveleges."
- George Carlin
 
2013-08-05 01:51:39 PM  

DarnoKonrad: dragonfire77: I find it hysterical that the same people who scream and whine about privacy freely give out their likes and dislikes, their political and religious affiliations, medical disorders, gender, address, phone #, inner most thoughts, relationship status, and current GPS location (FB "Check-in" feature anyone?) via social media all so that they can share with the world when they've eaten a pizza, and wiped their kids' butts.  But we need privacy, right?

Note to the people like this:  PRIVACY != ANONYMITY


I hate the whole focus of the debate.  No one seems to have any problem with private corporations data mining the shiat out of people, it's only when government tries to catch criminals it somehow becomes "intrusive."  Never mind it all comes from the same EULA people mindlessly click through.

The NSA doesn't care how many times a day you take a shiat, but I bet Google analytics  does.  Private industry has powerful incentives to keep as much data on individual profiles as possible and to do with it as they please  -- government has the exact opposite incentive.  They need to discriminate between useful data to catch criminals and noise.

At the bottom of it all is just more anti-government paranoia.  While the real power in America, money and corporations, get a free pass to do as much "spying" as they like.


People don't care because they were offered a "free" service and Google promised they wouldn't be evil.
 
2013-08-05 01:51:45 PM  

Explodo: In all likelihood LEOs don't need your password.


Haven't people already been jailed for not handing over their passwords?

Isn't there a thing along the border (the new border...the one that stretches 200 miles into the states from the actual borders) that is considered an exclusion zone in regards to the constitution and anyone bringing in a password protected cell phone or lap top is compelled to give authorities their password if asked?
 
2013-08-05 01:54:32 PM  

Saiga410: Yes, but only by court order.


You could always do what this lady did
 
2013-08-05 01:55:09 PM  

Giltric: Isn't there a thing along the border (the new border...the one that stretches 200 miles into the states from the actual borders) that is considered an exclusion zone in regards to the constitution and anyone bringing in a password protected cell phone or lap top is compelled to give authorities their password if asked?


upload.wikimedia.org

Someone's been reading the FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: chain emails from grandma again.
 
2013-08-05 01:56:51 PM  

nmrsnr: dittybopper: But the point is that with the location metadata, I can build up the most scarily accurate profile of you.  I can tell where you live, where you work, who your friends and family are, where you like to shop, where  you like to eat, and all manner of other things.  I can tell if you have a lead foot, or even if you own a car, ride the bus, walk, or ride a bike*.  Based upon where you go, I can get a pretty accurate estimate of what you make.  I can tell where you go to church, if you do, and I can even tell which bars you like to frequent.   Based upon proximity to you, I can tell who your co-workers are, and your friends.  And I can build up relationship maps.  I bet I could even tell you, with a fair degree of accuracy, who is sleeping with who.

Yup, data mining is pretty awesome. I can also decide to turn my phone off, or leave it at home unless I absolutely need it. That's the crux of the "it's not a search" argument, all of that information is given voluntarily to a third party (the phone company) for the convenience of their service.


So does having a plumber come in my home leave me open for a police search?
 
2013-08-05 01:57:01 PM  

Explodo: Imagine how hard the government would work to make it so that you cannot have a phone that NEVER connects to anything without your explicitly telling it to do so and is fully encrypted. It's already clear that turning the phone off is not a deterrent to being tracked as they can turn it back on remotely or just put it in surveillance mode so that it listens for them. You'd have to pull the battery all the time, and some phones don't even have that option.


If you really want one of those, grab an old OpenMoko FreeRunner from eBay. It's mostly open-source (including schematics) so you can install your own operating system to avoid those remote-access vulnerabilities. There might still be back doors in the proprietary GSM module, but at least you can power it down when it's not in use.
 
2013-08-05 02:00:39 PM  

hardinparamedic: Giltric: Isn't there a thing along the border (the new border...the one that stretches 200 miles into the states from the actual borders) that is considered an exclusion zone in regards to the constitution and anyone bringing in a password protected cell phone or lap top is compelled to give authorities their password if asked?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x163]

Someone's been reading the FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW: chain emails from grandma again.


http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you -l iving-constitution-free-zone
 
2013-08-05 02:01:32 PM  

nocturnal001: So does having a plumber come in my home leave me open for a police search?


It depends.  Did he fix the cable?
 
2013-08-05 02:01:48 PM  

hardinparamedic: I could see there being some kind of "Plain Sight" argument made using that.


Even without a passcode protecting your phone generally you'd still have to open up the phone log/e-mail/text messages - not plain sight at all.

My glove box may not be locked, but what's in it is not in plain sight if it's closed.
 
2013-08-05 02:02:42 PM  

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you -l iving-constitution-free-zone


So, yeah. FW:FW:FW: chain emails.
 
2013-08-05 02:03:13 PM  

SurfaceTension: Sybarite: To make a fair comparison, it would be as though every single piece of mail processed by the postal system passed through a government building, before being delivered,

Not to quibble, but this actually happens.

Sybarite: wherein all of the information you mention was recorded and stored in perpetuity.

This, not so much. At least not that we are aware.


Ummmm.... not so much? Not so much.
 
2013-08-05 02:04:44 PM  

gfid: hardinparamedic: I could see there being some kind of "Plain Sight" argument made using that.

Even without a passcode protecting your phone generally you'd still have to open up the phone log/e-mail/text messages - not plain sight at all.

My glove box may not be locked, but what's in it is not in plain sight if it's closed.


That varies state to state. In some states, if it's unlocked, it's considered fair game for cops to search because, in theory, a handgun therein was accessible. At least, that was true a couple of decades ago. Maybe that's not true anymore.

The law can be weird at times.
 
2013-08-05 02:06:14 PM  

nocturnal001: So does having a plumber come in my home leave me open for a police search?


No, but if the plumber noticed that the clog was from you flushing your stash of cocaine, and he tells the cops, the cops didn't perform an illegal search.
 
2013-08-05 02:06:56 PM  

hardinparamedic: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: http://www.aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you -l iving-constitution-free-zone

So, yeah. FW:FW:FW: chain emails.


Yeah - the 100-mile zone has to do with border-crossing because we don't guard every inch of the border and the INS patrols the major routes near borders instead.
 
2013-08-05 02:09:49 PM  
I dunno, 6? 6 private?
 
2013-08-05 02:10:13 PM  

nocturnal001: So does having a plumber come in my home leave me open for a police search?


The plumber is free to disclose what he learned while unclogging your toilet. To take the analogy further, if as a condition to unclog your toilet you choose to disclose all your bank records to him, he can hand that over too.
 
2013-08-05 02:10:28 PM  

vygramul: gfid: hardinparamedic: I could see there being some kind of "Plain Sight" argument made using that.

Even without a passcode protecting your phone generally you'd still have to open up the phone log/e-mail/text messages - not plain sight at all.

My glove box may not be locked, but what's in it is not in plain sight if it's closed.

That varies state to state. In some states, if it's unlocked, it's considered fair game for cops to search because, in theory, a handgun therein was accessible. At least, that was true a couple of decades ago. Maybe that's not true anymore.

The law can be weird at times.


Also...elephant in a tea pot.

If a suspect robbed a store with a shotgun...you can not look in the glove compartment for the shotgun.

but that was 30+ years ago.....we have less rights now.
 
2013-08-05 02:11:14 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: The current supreme court will see nothing unconstitutional about this at all, 5-4

Not necessarily.  Last year the court ruled on a case about whether attaching a GPS device to a car was considered a search (United States v. Jones).  They unanimously agreed that it was a search and it needed a warrant, but the interesting thing was how the opinions broke down.  Alito, at least, seems to be sympathetic to applying the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test to long term monitoring, so they'll probably put some restrictions on what the government can and cannot do.


Justice Alito said in Jones, the GPS tracker case, that "dramatic technological change may lead to periods in which popular expectations are in flux and may ultimately produce significant changes in popular attitudes."  Alito was right in his Jones concurrence when he said the court should not have relied on Scalia's old-fashioned trespass rationale.  Scalia said the GPS tracking was unconstitutional because agents trespassed when they attached a tracker to Jones' car.  Alito thinks the court should have recognized that the same remote tracking can occur without physical trespass, and ruled on reasonable expectation grounds.  But where he wants to go with reasonable expectation is scary.

Reasonable expectation can be used to justify greater incursions on privacy.  The argument is that if people are willing to accept 24/7 monitoring of virtually everything they do, it follows that it is all right constitutionally for the government to do it.
 
2013-08-05 02:12:48 PM  

Giltric: If a suspect robbed a store with a shotgun...you can not look in the glove compartment for the shotgun.

but that was 30+ years ago.....we have less rights now.


Gun laws are an exception to the rule in various States - especially if you have a HCP. It's the same principle as being required to perform a sobriety check when it's requested of you to keep a driver's license, as it's a privilege and not a right.

Tennessee, for example, requires you to tell an officer you have your gun on you if you are stopped and pulled over, and show him your handgun permit - even though someone with an illegal gun would not be required to do so.
 
2013-08-05 02:13:10 PM  

Smidge204: SurfaceTension: Your phone call is basically like sending a letter through the mail. It is absolutely illegal to open a letter and examine its contents, but if one wants to make the effort, they can examine the envelope of the letter and determine its source, its destination, whether its registered, the stamp that's affixed, how thick the envelope is, etc.

It's possible to send a letter almost completely anonymously, however. There's no requirement to put a return address on the envelope and you can send the letter from anywhere. So you have to add to it that it is always known what the originating address of the sender is, regardless of which post office it was postmarked at.
=Smidge=


You can do the same with a cellphone. Use a burner, turn it on only when you want to make calls.

You can't receive calls, but you can't receive mail without a standing address either.
 
2013-08-05 02:13:55 PM  

nocturnal001: So does having a plumber come in my home leave me open for a police search?


If he saw illegal things while in there, and then tells the police - yes
 
2013-08-05 02:15:18 PM  
I for one would like it if you'd keep your side of the conversation to yourself in public spaces.
 
2013-08-05 02:15:45 PM  

Giltric: vygramul: gfid: hardinparamedic: I could see there being some kind of "Plain Sight" argument made using that.

Even without a passcode protecting your phone generally you'd still have to open up the phone log/e-mail/text messages - not plain sight at all.

My glove box may not be locked, but what's in it is not in plain sight if it's closed.

That varies state to state. In some states, if it's unlocked, it's considered fair game for cops to search because, in theory, a handgun therein was accessible. At least, that was true a couple of decades ago. Maybe that's not true anymore.

The law can be weird at times.

Also...elephant in a tea pot.

If a suspect robbed a store with a shotgun...you can not look in the glove compartment for the shotgun.

but that was 30+ years ago.....we have less rights now.


Ah, but they COULD search your glove box to make sure you don't ALSO have a handgun.

IF it was unlocked and therefore accessible.
 
2013-08-05 02:18:07 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: llortcM_yllort: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: The current supreme court will see nothing unconstitutional about this at all, 5-4

Not necessarily.  Last year the court ruled on a case about whether attaching a GPS device to a car was considered a search (United States v. Jones).  They unanimously agreed that it was a search and it needed a warrant, but the interesting thing was how the opinions broke down.  Alito, at least, seems to be sympathetic to applying the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test to long term monitoring, so they'll probably put some restrictions on what the government can and cannot do.

Justice Alito said in Jones, the GPS tracker case, that "dramatic technological change may lead to periods in which popular expectations are in flux and may ultimately produce significant changes in popular attitudes."  Alito was right in his Jones concurrence when he said the court should not have relied on Scalia's old-fashioned trespass rationale.  Scalia said the GPS tracking was unconstitutional because agents trespassed when they attached a tracker to Jones' car.  Alito thinks the court should have recognized that the same remote tracking can occur without physical trespass, and ruled on reasonable expectation grounds.  But where he wants to go with reasonable expectation is scary.

Reasonable expectation can be used to justify greater incursions on privacy.  The argument is that if people are willing to accept 24/7 monitoring of virtually everything they do, it follows that it is all right constitutionally for the government to do it.



It's hard logic to argue with.  If you're willing to give up every detail of your life so Google can offer you trivial advertising about baldness and hard-on pills; it's hard to say the government can't use the same data to catch terrorists.
 
2013-08-05 02:19:23 PM  

vygramul: Giltric: vygramul: gfid: hardinparamedic: I could see there being some kind of "Plain Sight" argument made using that.

Even without a passcode protecting your phone generally you'd still have to open up the phone log/e-mail/text messages - not plain sight at all.

My glove box may not be locked, but what's in it is not in plain sight if it's closed.

That varies state to state. In some states, if it's unlocked, it's considered fair game for cops to search because, in theory, a handgun therein was accessible. At least, that was true a couple of decades ago. Maybe that's not true anymore.

The law can be weird at times.

Also...elephant in a tea pot.

If a suspect robbed a store with a shotgun...you can not look in the glove compartment for the shotgun.

but that was 30+ years ago.....we have less rights now.

Ah, but they COULD search your glove box to make sure you don't ALSO have a handgun.

IF it was unlocked and therefore accessible.


Yeah well a lot has changed since then....there was no exigent circumstances rules at the time either IIRC.
 
2013-08-05 02:19:41 PM  

Weaver95: I'm going to just go ahead and assume I don't have any rights anymore.


well you can carry an assault weapon into a church ,then a bar,then a playground.
so there's that.
 
2013-08-05 02:20:07 PM  
In the next 50 years? We're already at least 50 years behind with regards to technology and our system of law.
 
2013-08-05 02:22:36 PM  

Giltric: vygramul: Giltric: vygramul: gfid: hardinparamedic: I could see there being some kind of "Plain Sight" argument made using that.

Even without a passcode protecting your phone generally you'd still have to open up the phone log/e-mail/text messages - not plain sight at all.

My glove box may not be locked, but what's in it is not in plain sight if it's closed.

That varies state to state. In some states, if it's unlocked, it's considered fair game for cops to search because, in theory, a handgun therein was accessible. At least, that was true a couple of decades ago. Maybe that's not true anymore.

The law can be weird at times.

Also...elephant in a tea pot.

If a suspect robbed a store with a shotgun...you can not look in the glove compartment for the shotgun.

but that was 30+ years ago.....we have less rights now.

Ah, but they COULD search your glove box to make sure you don't ALSO have a handgun.

IF it was unlocked and therefore accessible.

Yeah well a lot has changed since then....there was no exigent circumstances rules at the time either IIRC.


I think it was recognized in the mid-70's. 76 is the first case listed in wiki article. But it could have been allowed but not delineated earlier.
 
2013-08-05 02:22:37 PM  

Somacandra: Sybarite: Sounds like the sort of thing J. Edgar Hoover would have creamed his bloomers over.

[i.imgur.com image 210x240]

Don't you mean J. Edna Hoover?


Well that's exactly the kind of slanderous and unsubstantiated rumor that I will not tolerate
 
2013-08-05 02:24:04 PM  

sugar_fetus: Surool: It's almost as if this is the exact 'slippery slope' that people warned about when the patriot act was first passed...

If I've learned one thing from Fark, it's that the 'slippery-slope' argument is a logical fallacy.


And so is appeal to authority, I've learned.

Folks, these are ONLY logical fallacies IF additional information cannot be provided to support the original premise or assertation.

/I know that's your point, but for how much it has been flying around lately. . .
 
2013-08-05 02:28:38 PM  

DarnoKonrad: No one seems to have any problem with private corporations data mining the shiat out of people


Actually a lot of people have a huge problem with it.

There's only so much one can do about it without going completely off the grid.  My bank knows my account balance.  My wireless carrier knows my phone number and who I've called and how many minutes I've used this month.  Those are unavoidable consequences of using those 2 things just as an example.  I would like to be protected from them sharing that data without my explicit consent (not some sort of obscure opt-out thing).
 
2013-08-05 02:30:29 PM  

SurfaceTension: I'm going to start off with saying that this justification for collection of metadata is NOT one that I agree with. However, I can see where an argument can be made for this view:

Your phone call is basically like sending a letter through the mail. It is absolutely illegal to open a letter and examine its contents, but if one wants to make the effort, they can examine the envelope of the letter and determine its source, its destination, whether its registered, the stamp that's affixed, how thick the envelope is, etc.

I'm wondering what people think about that?


Hm...I like it! Not sure I agree with it, but I like the comparison, at the very least.

/this whole thing is so much more complicated than it appears on the surface...
 
2013-08-05 02:38:42 PM  
4th amendment? There's more beyond the 2nd?

//I know that the 1st deals with Sharia law being illegal.
 
2013-08-05 02:39:58 PM  

DarnoKonrad: nocturnal001: So does having a plumber come in my home leave me open for a police search?

The plumber is free to disclose what he learned while unclogging your toilet. To take the analogy further, if as a condition to unclog your toilet you choose to disclose all your bank records to him, he can hand that over too.


Right, but he can not grant the government access to search your toilet.
 
2013-08-05 02:41:03 PM  

vygramul: [www.bitlogic.com image 400x522]


Because metadata isn't content.
 
2013-08-05 02:42:24 PM  

snowshovel: 4th amendment? There's more beyond the 2nd?

//I know that the 1st deals with Sharia law being illegal.


It goes 1st, 2nd, 10th, and 21st.  There is no 4th nor 5th.
 
Displayed 50 of 148 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 »
Advertisement
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