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  
•       •       •

3633 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Aug 2013 at 12:48 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-05 02:43:43 PM

Teiritzamna: 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



Perfect then. If Verizon ever decides to monitor all of it's customer's phone calls for illegal activity, then they would be able to turn that info over to the government.  That is not what has happened here.


TLDR,
Americans - every right we have is on the table to be reduced or nullified due to changes in technology and public safety, except for the 2nd amendment which is sacrosanct.  What's the point of guns if we have nothing to protect?
 
2013-08-05 02:45:09 PM

gfid: 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.


They also know where your phone has been every minute it's been turned on the entire month.  By extension, it knows where you have been.

You don't have to go completely "off the grid" to avoid that sort of thing, however.  Just don't carry a cell phone with you.
 
2013-08-05 02:46:50 PM

Empty Matchbook: 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...


Everything always is. That's why I hate pat answers to most problems.
 
2013-08-05 02:49:31 PM

nocturnal001: 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.



Well neither can Verizon.  Stuff you actually bother to keep private the NSA still has no access to.  Collection of dildos, private, tweeting a picture of your collection of dildos, not private.
 
2013-08-05 02:49:41 PM

nocturnal001: Perfect then. If Verizon ever decides to monitor all of it's customer's phone calls for illegal activity, then they would be able to turn that info over to the government.  That is not what has happened here.


Which would be blatantly illegal under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Phone companies cannot eavesdrop on their customers just because.

You're comparing a situation where a person lawfully allowed into your home witnessed an illegal act and reported it to police with a situation that from the very beginning is the definition of "Fruit from a poisoned tree".
 
2013-08-05 02:51:01 PM

An envelope, you say?

"Why I wrote PGP", by Philip Zimmermann

What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If a nonconformist tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what he's hiding. Fortunately, we don't live in that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. There's safety in numbers. Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all their email, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their email privacy with encryption. Think of it as a form of solidarity.
 
2013-08-05 02:51:46 PM
Whenever I see SCOTUS I think SCROTUMS.

Is it just me?
 
2013-08-05 02:52:10 PM

pdkl95: "Why I wrote PGP", by Philip Zimmermann


Too bad you libby libs persecuted him for shooting a marijuana fiend.
 
2013-08-05 02:54:09 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?


Just watched that last one night. Hurry up with the new episodes!
 
2013-08-05 02:56:15 PM

DarnoKonrad: 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.


So consenting to one company having your data means you automatically consent to everyone having it? This is like Rape Vs Sex. Just because you have sex with someone doesn't mean you consent to sex with everyone.
 
2013-08-05 03:03:05 PM

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

Because metadata isn't content.


Plenty of people insist that the government simply collects everything.
 
2013-08-05 03:04:43 PM

Jormungandr: So consenting to one company having your data means you automatically consent to everyone having it?


Well, yea.  Once you give it away, it's their data.  And they only exist to make a profit, so they have no problem handing your data over to law enforcement if their only goal is to make  a buck.

Jormungandr: This is like Rape Vs Sex. Just because you have sex with someone doesn't mean you consent to sex with everyone.


No, it's nothing like that.  People would benefit from just dealing reality here.  The 4th Amendment is very narrowly tailored to deal with primary governmental intrusions  -- it's not nearly as good as some European protections for example; stuff handed over to third parties is up for grabs.

Doesn't it bother you that the common media nomenclature for regular ol' people is "consumers?"  Your privacy is just as negotiable on the market as the leather off a cow's back.  It's just something to be utilized as a capital asset.
 
2013-08-05 03:04:49 PM

Jormungandr: DarnoKonrad: 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.

So consenting to one company having your data means you automatically consent to everyone having it? This is like Rape Vs Sex. Just because you have sex with someone doesn't mean you consent to sex with everyone.


When you give the company the right to sell it or transfer ownership of a copy to the government it kinda does.
 
2013-08-05 03:04:59 PM

hardinparamedic: pdkl95: "Why I wrote PGP", by Philip Zimmermann

Too bad you libby libs persecuted him for shooting a marijuana fiend.


Philip Zimmermann, noted cryptography expert and author of PGP ("Pretty Good Privacy") may have been investigated by the feds as a criminal, but that was because of their fantasy about certain types of math being a "munition" and covered by the Arms Export Control Act.

At no point should he be confused with a certain dickless coward.

/also, "libby libs"? Ahh, trolls yet again jumping at things they wish were true...
//welcome to yet another ignore list
 
2013-08-05 03:07:07 PM

pdkl95: hardinparamedic: pdkl95: "Why I wrote PGP", by Philip Zimmermann

Too bad you libby libs persecuted him for shooting a marijuana fiend.

Philip Zimmermann, noted cryptography expert and author of PGP ("Pretty Good Privacy") may have been investigated by the feds as a criminal, but that was because of their fantasy about certain types of math being a "munition" and covered by the Arms Export Control Act.

At no point should he be confused with a certain dickless coward.

/also, "libby libs"? Ahh, trolls yet again jumping at things they wish were true...
//welcome to yet another ignore list


I'm pretty sure if you run that through some restricted maths and programs like such as and furthermore you'll find it was a joke.
 
2013-08-05 03:07:59 PM

Deneb81: I'm pretty sure if you run that through some restricted maths and programs like such as and furthermore you'll find it was a joke.


I don't think his latest download of PGP came with the humor upgrade he was looking for.
 
2013-08-05 03:09:56 PM

Deneb81: 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.


1. Yes, you can receive mail at a post office box without having a fixed address.  That address is fixed, but analogous to a wired phone:  It never changes location, but you can.

2. Burners are of limited utility, especially if you employ them as you suggest.

First, you can't just leave it off until  you want to make a call.  Well, technically you can, but the problem is if your correspondents do the same thing, you'll be forever playing phone tag, which depending on how often you check your phone, could be nearly as bad as not having a phone at all.

Second, unless you are very, very scrupulous about never, ever using the phone in an area where you live, work, or play, they can still very likely figure out who you are.

Third, turning a phone on, conducting some businesses, and turning it off immediately is a suspicious pattern.  If I had access to all that metadata and I were looking for patterns that drug dealers or terrorists might have, that's probably the first thing I would think of:  Phones that are dark 99% of the time, pop up on the network at random locations, stay on for a few minutes at most, then go dark again.  That just *SCREAMS* "Hey, I'm trying to avoid being tracked over here!".

If you're really paranoid about it, eschew cell phones.  For most of what you'd want to use a cell phone for, you can do it using relatively short-range radios.  The shorter range, the better.  It's more vulnerable to casual eavesdropping, but ironically more secure against the sort of systematic monitoring that can be done with cell phones:  You can leave a radio on receive and it doesn't report your location every few minutes.  When you transmit, you can of course be DF'ed, but only if they have assets available and in range to DF you.
 
2013-08-05 03:11:44 PM

hardinparamedic: Deneb81: I'm pretty sure if you run that through some restricted maths and programs like such as and furthermore you'll find it was a joke.

I don't think his latest download of PGP came with the humor upgrade he was looking for.


*sigh*

I'll plea Poe's Law on this one, then. After the circus that politics has become in the last few years, it's becoming harder and harder to tell.
 
2013-08-05 03:12:48 PM

pdkl95: I'll plea Poe's Law on this one, then. After the circus that politics has become in the last few years, it's becoming harder and harder to tell.


If something I post sounds like a right-winged, FARK independant, easily mocked talking point, chances are it was intentional. :)
 
2013-08-05 03:13:40 PM

pdkl95: hardinparamedic: pdkl95: "Why I wrote PGP", by Philip Zimmermann

Too bad you libby libs persecuted him for shooting a marijuana fiend.

Philip Zimmermann, noted cryptography expert and author of PGP ("Pretty Good Privacy") may have been investigated by the feds as a criminal, but that was because of their fantasy about certain types of math being a "munition" and covered by the Arms Export Control Act.

At no point should he be confused with a certain dickless coward.

/also, "libby libs"? Ahh, trolls yet again jumping at things they wish were true...
//welcome to yet another ignore list


Wait the old skipper of the Cubs was a cryptoligist?  Wow I knew of his work in wrestling but never this.
 
2013-08-05 03:14:13 PM

DarnoKonrad: Well neither can Verizon.  Stuff you actually bother to keep private the NSA still has no access to.  Collection of dildos, private, tweeting a picture of your collection of dildos, not private.


Your trip to the adult bookstore where you bought the dildos*, or the fact that you conducted some business with onlinedildowarehouse.com:  not private.  Because the NSA is collecting all that metadata.


*If you are carrying a cell phone.
 
2013-08-05 03:17:55 PM

DarnoKonrad: nocturnal001: 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.


Well neither can Verizon.  Stuff you actually bother to keep private the NSA still has no access to.  Collection of dildos, private, tweeting a picture of your collection of dildos, not private.


So please get back to us with a list of all the situations where we have no expectation of privacy.

All of this is just police state bullcrap.  New technology in areas such as media rights have always had to follow the same rules as the older tech (i.e. you can't copy MP3s and distribute) but suddenly when it comes to the government's ability to spy on it's citizens then now the narrative is that our rights only apply for the old tech like letters or a photo album in your basement. 

Want to monitor my phone calls? Get a warrant. God forbid they use the "automatic free warrant for any reason" machine they already have installed to do so.
 
2013-08-05 03:19:25 PM

nocturnal001: So please get back to us with a list of all the situations where we have no expectation of privacy.


Anything that places you in public and plain view. Someone standing behind you listening to what you say is not the same thing, practically or legally, as someone who is in a van 20 blocks away listening to you over a radio transceiver.
 
2013-08-05 03:24:20 PM

dittybopper: Deneb81: 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.

1. Yes, you can receive mail at a post office box without having a fixed address.  That address is fixed, but analogous to a wired phone:  It never changes location, but you can.

2. Burners are of limited utility, especially if you employ them as you suggest.

First, you can't just leave it off until  you want to make a call.  Well, technically you can, but the problem is if your correspondents do the same thing, you'll be forever playing phone tag, which depending on how often you check your phone, could be nearly as bad as not having a phone at all.

Second, unless you are very, very scrupulous about never, ever using the phone in an area where you live, work, or play, they can still very likely figure out who you are.

Third, turning a phone on, conducting some businesses, and turning it off immediately is a suspicious pattern.  If I had access to all that metadata and I were looking for patterns that drug dealers or terrorists might have, that's probably the first thing I would think of:  Phones that are dark 99% of the time, pop up on the network at random locations, stay on for a few minutes at most, then go dark again.  That just *SCREAMS* "Hey, I'm trying to avoid being tracked over here!".

If you're really paranoid about it, eschew cell phones.  For most of what you'd want to use a cell phone for, you can do it using relatively short-range radios.  The shorter range, the better.  It's more vulnerable to casual eavesdropping, but ironically more secure against the sort of systematic monitoring that can be done with cell phones:  You can leave a radio on receive and it doesn't report your location every few minutes.  When you transmit, you can of course be DF'ed, but only if they have assets available and in range to DF you.


And ALL of those problems exist in postal mail exchange.

If you want cell use to be as 'private' or 'anonymous' as mail use you have to give up the advantages of always on/always connected/constant address just like the you do when using mail.

My entire comment was in response to your comment about mail being anonymous - I'm just pointing out that the same system - with its strengths AND weaknesses - are viable with phones.
 
2013-08-05 03:28:56 PM

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


One thing I have learned about the slippery slope idea. It is only a logical fallacy if the other side is not actively working to drag you down to the extreme you are proposing. For example. It was not a slippery slope that killed 6 million Jews and countless others. The Third Reich actively sought from the very beginning to eliminate those people to the best of their ability. That is not a slippery slope fallacy. That is one group seeking a goal and actively using baby steps to get there.

I am a right wing conservative pro capitalist but even I know that every companies goal is to have employees work 24 X 7 X 365 and be unpaid. Every step away from that goal is taken with blood sweat and struggle. So the fact that wages are going down while efficiency is going up is not a function of a slippery slope brought on by globalization but the goal of industry the entire time and every action works toward that goal.

The government wants 100% tracking of every thing every person does 24 hours a day with no accountability not necessarily for some nefarious reason but it makes it much easier to do their jobs and be effective. Every step along the way, Patriot Act, NSA, FBI CIA etc is with this one goal in mind. To be able to track every transaction of every person everywhere all the time so they can have the ability to easily find what they want and ignore the rest.
Do you really want to trust government or any company with that kind of information?

We are at a crossroads to decide what kind of country we want. Choose wisely
 
2013-08-05 03:31:04 PM

hardinparamedic: nocturnal001: So please get back to us with a list of all the situations where we have no expectation of privacy.

Anything that places you in public and plain view. Someone standing behind you listening to what you say is not the same thing, practically or legally, as someone who is in a van 20 blocks away listening to you over a radio transceiver.


So ANY cell conversion meets that test?  I could do the same thing on a cordless phone in my backyard, or in a more ridiculous example walk down the street with a 200ft cord attached to a lan line phone. Sure, that call may have no expectation of privacy, but surely if I were to move back into my house/car I would have that right.
 
2013-08-05 03:31:22 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.


...You say as we all skid down the predicted incline. "Slippery slope" as a guaranteed outcome would be a logical fallacy, but it is a valid warning of what might happen. It is happening. Who owns your information is being redefined so that the government can take it without a warrant. What happened to catching terrorists? Who cares? We'll just monitor everything everyone does.

"If I've learned one thing from Fark " is equivalent to using a random douche on the city bus as a credible source.
 
2013-08-05 03:35:44 PM

nocturnal001: list of all the situations where we have no expectation of privacy.


anytime you give it to a third party with a EULA that explicates as much for starters.

nocturnal001: All of this is just police state bullcrap.


Populist ranting.  Fact is, America was founded to protect wealthy interests, and it remains that way today.  Your data is a vital capital asset to be marketed as monied interests see fit, and they have no profit motive nor legal reason to withhold this data from law enforcement.

But keep blaming the government, people with the money like it that way.  Hell, that's why they elect them.
 
2013-08-05 03:45:26 PM
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

Look who's paying for it now.
 
2013-08-05 03:46:02 PM

Surool: 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.

...You say as we all skid down the predicted incline. "Slippery slope" as a guaranteed outcome would be a logical fallacy, but it is a valid warning of what might happen. It is happening. Who owns your information is being redefined so that the government can take it without a warrant. What happened to catching terrorists? Who cares? We'll just monitor everything everyone does.

"If I've learned one thing from Fark " is equivalent to using a random douche on the city bus as a credible source.


A perfect example of Poe's Law in action.
 
2013-08-05 03:46:11 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.


When does it stop just being a convenience and become a necessity to operate in society?
 
2013-08-05 03:47:35 PM

Deneb81: And ALL of those problems exist in postal mail exchange.


No, they don't.

If I post a letter, at best, you know where I am when I put it into the system.  You can't tell where I was before or after I did that.
 
2013-08-05 03:49:45 PM

DarnoKonrad: nocturnal001: list of all the situations where we have no expectation of privacy.

anytime you give it to a third party with a EULA that explicates as much for starters.

nocturnal001: All of this is just police state bullcrap.

Populist ranting.  Fact is, America was founded to protect wealthy interests, and it remains that way today.  Your data is a vital capital asset to be marketed as monied interests see fit, and they have no profit motive nor legal reason to withhold this data from law enforcement.

But keep blaming the government, people with the money like it that way.  Hell, that's why they elect them.


So yes, you agree then I see.

Good.
 
2013-08-05 03:57:40 PM

DarnoKonrad: nocturnal001: list of all the situations where we have no expectation of privacy.

anytime you give it to a third party with a EULA that explicates as much for starters.

nocturnal001: All of this is just police state bullcrap.

Populist ranting.  Fact is, America was founded to protect wealthy interests, and it remains that way today.  Your data is a vital capital asset to be marketed as monied interests see fit, and they have no profit motive nor legal reason to withhold this data from law enforcement.

But keep blaming the government, people with the money like it that way.  Hell, that's why they elect them.


I'm of a similar mind, but I see it as not needing to be explicit. It doesn't take much imbalance... no extra weights on the scales. The table is only slightly crooked, and the balls will all roll to one side. No need to be doing anything too obvious. That's why, occasionally, a rich person actually DOES lose.
 
2013-08-05 06:40:27 PM

sugar_fetus: Surool: 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.

...You say as we all skid down the predicted incline. "Slippery slope" as a guaranteed outcome would be a logical fallacy, but it is a valid warning of what might happen. It is happening. Who owns your information is being redefined so that the government can take it without a warrant. What happened to catching terrorists? Who cares? We'll just monitor everything everyone does.

"If I've learned one thing from Fark " is equivalent to using a random douche on the city bus as a credible source.

A perfect example of Poe's Law in action.


More than you'll ever know
 
2013-08-05 07:02:04 PM
Let me guess, your cellphone is private and the government needs a search warrant but, like DUI checkpoints, the government thinks it would be really cool if that wasn't the case so too bad.
 
2013-08-05 08:25:28 PM

Giltric: 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?


No that is not a thing.

Jesus Christ people, do not limit your news exposure to fark links.
 
2013-08-05 08:31:19 PM

nocturnal001: Teiritzamna: 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


Perfect then. If Verizon ever decides to monitor all of it's customer's phone calls for illegal activity, then they would be able to turn that info over to the government.  That is not what has happened here.


TLDR,
Americans - every right we have is on the table to be reduced or nullified due to changes in technology and public safety, except for the 2nd amendment which is sacrosanct.  What's the point of guns if we have nothing to protect?


If you have nothing more important to protect than emails and their metadata, you need better things.

Things like family and places to go.

/really gets sick of hyperbole.
 
2013-08-05 10:30:18 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Honestly, I don't see how cell phones can be considered any different then the existing laws on land lines.  Only possible exception is maybe the GPS features.


Well, it used to be that:

1. You could just hang a bare wire over the phone wire and hear anything anyone on that phone line was saying. Also, party lines existed (my mom's family had one as late as 1957) such that anyone who lifted the receiver heard whatever anyone else on the line was discussing. Hence, no "expectation of privacy". Early laws reflected that talking on a phone was no different than talking in a public location.

2. Then the technology changed so that an actual "phone" and "receiver" was required on each end independent of the wire. Now there was a reasonable expectation that no third party could be hearing what you were saying. Hence, the laws changed to reflect that.

3. When cell phones were first invented and became popular, anyone with a CB radio and antenna could intercept and hear phone conversations on that frequency. Again: No expectation of privacy because any third person with readily available equipment could listen in. Therefore, no laws needed to protect you.

4. Then encryption was added so that cell phones could only talk to cell phones. Now a reasonable expectation of privacy, and cell phones became more like phones again.

Cell phones aren't "just like landlines," but they're not just like walkie-talkies either, and we don't have laws that cover transmission of messages that can be intercepted without hardwired technology (like a landline) but that is still more encrypted than a CB radio. In fact, it's the idea that a cell phone IS "just like a landline" that's gotten us to this point, where everything is being done on wireless technology but there haven't really been any bright-line laws drawn to address them.

Now it might be nice to think that, like the 4th Amd., any "government action" would be enough to invoke a warrant requirement; but again, the tech has outstripped the law. Is it any better if some gray-hat hacker starts intercepting and downloading everyone's phone calls, deciding which ones HE thinks should be sent on to the NSA, and then hi-ho Silver! away! but can't be touched because he's not a state actor? Sometimes we need hard&fast rules about what the government can and can't do.
 
2013-08-05 11:13:13 PM

Somacandra: I don't see how they could possibly have the authority to do this. Both Justice Scalia and I have Command-F'd the entire Constitution (plus all Amendments), The Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the Articles of Confederation and the Iroquois's Great Binding Law and failed to find one even one instance of the word "cell phone." So there.


Did you check the 1297 update to Magna Carta? King Edward wasn't about to let some fancy pants technicality make him give up Wales and Scotland.
 
2013-08-06 12:34:37 AM

Smackledorfer: nocturnal001: Teiritzamna: 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


Perfect then. If Verizon ever decides to monitor all of it's customer's phone calls for illegal activity, then they would be able to turn that info over to the government.  That is not what has happened here.


TLDR,
Americans - every right we have is on the table to be reduced or nullified due to changes in technology and public safety, except for the 2nd amendment which is sacrosanct.  What's the point of guns if we have nothing to protect?

If you have nothing more important to protect than emails and their metadata, you need better things.

Things like family and places to go.

/really gets sick of hyperbole.


So those are the only things worth protecting?

Sorry guy, some of us strive for more than just "my family is alive" and "can go places".
 
2013-08-06 02:13:38 AM

nocturnal001: Smackledorfer: nocturnal001: Teiritzamna: 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


Perfect then. If Verizon ever decides to monitor all of it's customer's phone calls for illegal activity, then they would be able to turn that info over to the government.  That is not what has happened here.


TLDR,
Americans - every right we have is on the table to be reduced or nullified due to changes in technology and public safety, except for the 2nd amendment which is sacrosanct.  What's the point of guns if we have nothing to protect?

If you have nothing more important to protect than emails and their metadata, you need better things.

Things like family and places to go.

/really gets sick of hyperbole.

So those are the only things worth protecting?

Sorry guy, some of us strive for more than just "my family is alive" and "can go places".


Uhh, the only one of us limiting the number of things worth protecting was the one claiming "what is the point of guns if we have nothing to protect" when speaking about email privacy. I mentioned non-email things everyone should try to have that are still worth protecting. As such, your response was just a doubling down on mindless hyperbole.
 
2013-08-06 09:48:44 AM

Smackledorfer: nocturnal001: Smackledorfer: nocturnal001: Teiritzamna: 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


Perfect then. If Verizon ever decides to monitor all of it's customer's phone calls for illegal activity, then they would be able to turn that info over to the government.  That is not what has happened here.


TLDR,
Americans - every right we have is on the table to be reduced or nullified due to changes in technology and public safety, except for the 2nd amendment which is sacrosanct.  What's the point of guns if we have nothing to protect?

If you have nothing more important to protect than emails and their metadata, you need better things.

Things like family and places to go.

/really gets sick of hyperbole.

So those are the only things worth protecting?

Sorry guy, some of us strive for more than just "my family is alive" and "can go places".

Uhh, the only one of us limiting the number of things worth protecting was the one claiming "what is the point of guns if we have nothing to protect" when speaking about email privacy. I mentioned non-email things everyone should try to have that are still worth protecting. As such, your response was just a doubling down on mindless hyperbole.


It's not mindless hyperbole, you just aren't reading my comment in the correct light.  In context my statement is referencing the RIGHT to bare arms as a way to protect our other RIGHTS (which is what the 2nd is for no?).  Since this is a thread about our constitutional rights, that should translate into any comment on rights referencing those rights.
 
2013-08-06 10:30:28 AM

nocturnal001: It's not mindless hyperbole, you just aren't reading my comment in the correct light.  In context my statement is referencing the RIGHT to bare arms as a way to protect our other RIGHTS (which is what the 2nd is for no?).  Since this is a thread about our constitutional rights, that should translate into any comment on rights referencing those rights.


Ya, I got that. Here is the hyperbolic part:

Americans - every right we have is on the table to be reduced or nullified due to changes in technology and public safety, except for the 2nd amendment which is sacrosanct.  What's the point of guns if we have nothing to protect?

We have plenty of rights left to protect, and plenty of freedoms to protect, and your statement is full-retard chicken little. I half-expect your response to be the part where you tell me if I don't wet my pants over cell-phone metadata then I've directly contributed to the slippery slope of doom in which the government has a camera in my wife's vagina or whatever else your most recent dystopian sci-fi novel put in your mind.
 
2013-08-06 10:50:59 AM

Smackledorfer: nocturnal001: It's not mindless hyperbole, you just aren't reading my comment in the correct light.  In context my statement is referencing the RIGHT to bare arms as a way to protect our other RIGHTS (which is what the 2nd is for no?).  Since this is a thread about our constitutional rights, that should translate into any comment on rights referencing those rights.

Ya, I got that. Here is the hyperbolic part:

Americans - every right we have is on the table to be reduced or nullified due to changes in technology and public safety, except for the 2nd amendment which is sacrosanct.  What's the point of guns if we have nothing to protect?

We have plenty of rights left to protect, and plenty of freedoms to protect, and your statement is full-retard chicken little. I half-expect your response to be the part where you tell me if I don't wet my pants over cell-phone metadata then I've directly contributed to the slippery slope of doom in which the government has a camera in my wife's vagina or whatever else your most recent dystopian sci-fi novel put in your mind.


So anyone who is concerned with governmental privacy issues is some tinfoil hat chicken little. Right.

I could mention that by definition, a constitutional guarantee to freedom from an unwarranted search is nullified if you only have the right some of the time has nothing to do with the strawman you are building but I suppose you are either too stupid to understand why these rights are important or are a wanna be fascist who doesn't mind his government controlling his life.

Resorting to name calling is so much easier than intelligent debate!  BTW, you may need to read up a little bit. It does not look like it is just metadata being monitored.
 
2013-08-06 11:12:02 AM

nocturnal001: So anyone who is concerned with governmental privacy issues is some tinfoil hat chicken little. Right.


Sigh.  No. Anyone who sees one aspect of one section of government recognized rights being trimmed (and in fact is not trimmed, but rather technology has surpassed recognized case law, besides which the best comparison is if you give information to a third party then the third party can happily give it to the government without it being a 4th amendment issue anyways) and says things along the lines of 'there is nothing left to fight for, its the end of freedom zomg' is a tinfoil hat chicken little.

That's you.

nocturnal001: I could mention that by definition, a constitutional guarantee to freedom from an unwarranted search is nullified if you only have the right some of the time


Then we never had any rights in our lifetime.  There was no freedom because some people, in some places, had restrictions.  We've never had free speech because there has always been some level of time manner and place restriction.  There have never been property rights because some people (blacks) couldn't own. We've never had any property rights because the government can seize land to build. We have never had any 4th amendment rights because there have always been "reasonable" exceptions to the warrant requirement.

nocturnal001: BTW, you may need to read up a little bit. It does not look like it is just metadata being monitored


Ahh, and this justifies saying "there is nothing left to fight for"? No, it doesn't.  Stop being a chicken little.

nocturnal001: Resorting to name calling is so much easier than intelligent debate!


I said you were a chicken little who went full retard.  You call me a stupid fascist.  I fail to see how you can claim the high ground on this.  Not that I'm claiming it, mind you.  I've both debunked your points AND called you a retard.  The latter hasn't in any way prevented me from debating.
 
2013-08-06 11:28:21 AM

Smackledorfer: nocturnal001: So anyone who is concerned with governmental privacy issues is some tinfoil hat chicken little. Right.

Sigh.  No. Anyone who sees one aspect of one section of government recognized rights being trimmed (and in fact is not trimmed, but rather technology has surpassed recognized case law, besides which the best comparison is if you give information to a third party then the third party can happily give it to the government without it being a 4th amendment issue anyways) and says things along the lines of 'there is nothing left to fight for, its the end of freedom zomg' is a tinfoil hat chicken little.

That's you.

nocturnal001: I could mention that by definition, a constitutional guarantee to freedom from an unwarranted search is nullified if you only have the right some of the time

Then we never had any rights in our lifetime.  There was no freedom because some people, in some places, had restrictions.  We've never had free speech because there has always been some level of time manner and place restriction.  There have never been property rights because some people (blacks) couldn't own. We've never had any property rights because the government can seize land to build. We have never had any 4th amendment rights because there have always been "reasonable" exceptions to the warrant requirement.

nocturnal001: BTW, you may need to read up a little bit. It does not look like it is just metadata being monitored

Ahh, and this justifies saying "there is nothing left to fight for"? No, it doesn't.  Stop being a chicken little.

nocturnal001: Resorting to name calling is so much easier than intelligent debate!

I said you were a chicken little who went full retard.  You call me a stupid fascist.  I fail to see how you can claim the high ground on this.  Not that I'm claiming it, mind you.  I've both debunked your points AND called you a retard.  The latter hasn't in any way prevented me from debating.


blah blah insert words in other person's mouth blah blah you are so hyperbolic blah blah more irony blah blah

I don't know what you think you debunked?  You are arguing against the line of thought that you have chosen for me, not the one I have actually displayed.  I don't think you need me for this.  Here, this may be helpful.  Feel free to play political ad-libs here.


"insert stance here that you wish to deride"
"insert more as needed"
 
2013-08-06 11:47:31 AM
You are insane and projecting. Goodbye.
 
Displayed 48 of 148 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report