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.

(Huffington Post)   SCOTUS admits, sadly, that they're probably gonna have to decide just how constitutional your right to privacy really is   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 109
    More: Interesting, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court, NSA, Ginsberg, Edward Snowden, National Press, constitutions  
•       •       •

3184 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Apr 2014 at 9:49 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-18 05:40:13 PM

TV's Vinnie: Well, we already know that Scalia and Thomas will vote for abolishing the Right to privacy. Those two have done more harm to Democracy than The Red Skull.


Really? Is this the same Scalia that tried to keep DNA protected under the fourth? There are plenty of reasons to hate Scalia, I don't think his stance on the fourth is one of them.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-lookout/dissent-scalia-joins-court-lib erals-blast-police-dna-184252969.html
 
2014-04-18 05:41:07 PM

Biological Ali: Communist_Manifesto: That's not true. The government ruled that a device known as a pen register that records what number a phone called aren't considered searches since people gave the data to a 3rd party company. The PATRIOT Act expanded it to all internet communication, this expansion has not been deemed to be constitutional or unconstitutional by the supreme court. The court may well come to the same conclusion in regards to this expansion, but it hasn't yet and to claim otherwise is wrong.

The 1979 ruling was based not on the fact that the information related specifically to telephones, but that there is a distinction between the content of a communication and other details about the communication that have been voluntarily given to a third party - a distinction which very much applies still today. Indeed, the judge that upheld the constitutionality of the metadata collection program cited that very case, as one would expect.

You can make (and people have made) the argument that there's something about the internet that somehow makes the principle behind the 1979 ruling longer applicable, but it doesn't seem to be a particularly convincing one, at least when it comes to the courts.


I will give you that the court did side with the "you gave the data to a third party so we can look at it too argument". I just don't think you're using the term metadata correctly and that the extent of the NSA metadata collect is on a far larger scale than number a called number b. Knowing that person a was at location x at time y, and then and time z he was at located elsewhere is in my eyes fundamentally different since the scope is far greater than what was ruled on in 79. We need a strong 4th amendment to protect us from the potential of abuse by current and future administrations. If we ever get around to electing a truly evil person to be president, we will wish we had put more limits on this sort of thing as the potential for abuse is too great.
 
2014-04-18 06:11:13 PM

Diogenes: Rev. Skarekroe: "Rights" don't exist.  They're a philosophical construct.
George Carlin understood.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hWiBt-pqp0E #t =257

Neither do "ethics" for that matter.


But agreements to behave as if both concepts exist do indeed themselves exist.

Some fictions are very useful.
 
2014-04-18 09:22:23 PM

nekom: Full text of constitution, ctrl-F "privacy"
No results found.


4th amendment is the main one.  In English, we have things called synonyms, where multiple words and phrases can refer to the same concept.
 
2014-04-19 02:03:35 AM
I don't have a whole lot of faith in our Supreme Court.  I consider it a farking miracle they ruled correctly in the Heller case. They must have been drunk that day.
 
2014-04-19 02:11:33 AM

nekom: Full text of constitution, ctrl-F "privacy"
No results found.


Let me fix that for you, since it is obvious you have never bothered to actually read the Constitution or the Amendments:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
2014-04-19 09:16:04 AM

OgreMagi: nekom: Full text of constitution, ctrl-F "privacy"
No results found.

Let me fix that for you, since it is obvious you have never bothered to actually read the Constitution or the Amendments:

Amendment IX

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


static.tvtropes.org
 
2014-04-19 12:36:18 PM

Jim_Callahan: nekom: Full text of constitution, ctrl-F "privacy"
No results found.

4th amendment is the main one.  In English, we have things called synonyms, where multiple words and phrases can refer to the same concept.


Privacy is ambiguous and an unworkable standard.
 
2014-04-19 12:36:54 PM

RINO: TV's Vinnie: Well, we already know that Scalia and Thomas will vote for abolishing the Right to privacy. Those two have done more harm to Democracy than The Red Skull.

Really? Is this the same Scalia that tried to keep DNA protected under the fourth? There are plenty of reasons to hate Scalia, I don't think his stance on the fourth is one of them.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/the-lookout/dissent-scalia-joins-court-li b erals-blast-police-dna-184252969.html


The folks who complain about Scalia on criminal process are the least informed about him.
 
Displayed 9 of 109 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