Recommended Posts
jcd11235***that sounds like a bit of a rationalization.
Not at all. As an example, most people would like for their phone or bank records to be private, but the SCOTUS says they are not protected by the fourth amendment, since the information was freely given to the phone company / bank.
Here's the issue: the free exchange of information becomes chilled because of it. People have the choice of waiving privacy or dropping off the grid (and what does the government think of people who want to be left alone? There are examples of it). It's either have life as an open book or don't participate in society.
We've always believed that knowledge is power. The means of acquiring and dispersing knowledge are now suspect. Want to call to set up a date? Well, you shouldn't have used the phone, eh? Should have met in person. Etc.
It's the Catch-22. If one wants privacy from the government then one must become a hermit.
It's not how society has been. It's now how it was set up. The Bill of Rights are designed to ensure that the government leaves people the fuck alone unless there's a damned good reason. Now? The government is involved wirh everyone and is pissed off because we found out about it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
kelpdiveryour citation begins with references evidence collected (and contested) by subpoena, which is really different from this information being freely available without any notification.
It's not different at all. The government need only go to the service providers, not the individuals, to get the data. Since the individuals have already provided the service providers with the data, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy; they have no fourth amendment protection for the data. The service providers have long acknowledged providing the government with access to specific data.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
lawrocketNow? The government is involved wirh everyone …
If you just now found out about that, rest assured, you're among the very last to know. It's noting new or malicious.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235***Now? The government is involved wirh everyone …
If you just now found out about that, rest assured, you're among the very last to know. It's noting new or malicious.
The expansion of the snooping is new. It is involved in new things. And is being done without suspicion.
And - it doesn't have to be malicious. If anyone thinks he or she is doing something for me for my own good, that person can fuck himself or herself. Want to do something for me? Leave me alone. Want information from me? Ask for it.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
lawrocketThe expansion of the snooping is new. It is involved in new things. And is being done without suspicion.
Are you seriously claiming that obtaining data legally, with authorization from the courts, is an expansion of warrantless wiretapping? Are you high?
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235***The expansion of the snooping is new. It is involved in new things. And is being done without suspicion.
Are you seriously claiming that obtaining data legally, with authorization from the courts, is an expansion of warrantless wiretapping? Are you high?
Negative.
I am saying that calling something "legal" doesn't mean it's "Constitutional." Kindly note the difference between those two concepts. For example, a provision of the NDAA signed in dec. 2011 made it legal to put citizens who were alleged to have "substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" into military detention indefinitely and without the usual recourse to civil courts.
Don't you see how the law authorizws certain things. Have you heard any administration official or Congressperson defend the "Constitutionality" of the shit they are doing? Neither have I. They are all focusing on it being a "legal" thing to do. Why? Because Congress passed a bill and the President signed it into law.
Do yoy understand the difference between "legal" and "Constitutional?" Congress and the President do. That's why they won't comment on the "Constitutionality."
Note: every person who has ever been arrested has been as the result of somebody's viewpoint that society is better off with that person off the streets. Indeed, there was just some guy arrested for DUI in Arizona that had a 0.0% blood alcohol content.
I don't think that there was malice involved. Just one or more police officers concerned about the safety and security of the population. And I'm sure that this guy will be found not guilty and life can go on for him as if it never happened. Just like the evidence taken from Tsarnaev likely won't be used against him. No violations of rights in either, no sir.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
lawrocket******The expansion of the snooping is new. It is involved in new things. And is being done without suspicion.
Are you seriously claiming that obtaining data legally, with authorization from the courts, is an expansion of warrantless wiretapping? Are you high?
Negative.
I am saying that calling something "legal" doesn't mean it's "Constitutional." Kindly note the difference between those two concepts.
So you believe that after the SCOTUS rules that a particular practice is allowed, we cannot infer from their ruling that that particular practice is constitutional? Got it.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
wmw999 2,588
I think we're at an intersection of technology, communication, and storage that really mean that information needs to be thought of in different ways.
When we spoke on land lines, the recording of information took a specific act, and that act required a subpoena or court order, or permission. Letters had one copy, unless we used carbon paper, and if we threw the carbon paper in the trash, it was fair game.
But with the digital age, what we write is definitely stored, not only on the computers where we know it's stored, but also on all intermediate computers when it's transmitted from one party to another. We assume that it's deleted as soon as it's passed on, but there's nothing that specifically dictates that in the US (and maybe not anywhere).
Since so many people are just fine with their cell phones and cars knowing where they are all the time, and they post pictures and videos of themselves on Facebook or wherever, and what groups and families they're part of is all over the place, what does privacy even mean anymore? It's easy to see what the really-private think, but they may not be a significant enough population to matter.
We need to delineate digital information, from its generation, through storage, transmission, receipt, and possible destruction, and determine what who owns it at each point, how that can be enforced, how it's paid for, and who can access it and how. This is a collective "we," -- this is a big project, with a huge potential for conflict. Such a project would also need to identify possible future directions that technology could move.
In the real IT world, the only way to really keep your data secure is to have no connection whatsoever with the outside world -- no internet, no email connection, nothing except for a cleanroom, with a single validated and vetted input source. It's what mainframes are good at, but it's not what we do any more.
Wendy P.
When we spoke on land lines, the recording of information took a specific act, and that act required a subpoena or court order, or permission. Letters had one copy, unless we used carbon paper, and if we threw the carbon paper in the trash, it was fair game.
But with the digital age, what we write is definitely stored, not only on the computers where we know it's stored, but also on all intermediate computers when it's transmitted from one party to another. We assume that it's deleted as soon as it's passed on, but there's nothing that specifically dictates that in the US (and maybe not anywhere).
Since so many people are just fine with their cell phones and cars knowing where they are all the time, and they post pictures and videos of themselves on Facebook or wherever, and what groups and families they're part of is all over the place, what does privacy even mean anymore? It's easy to see what the really-private think, but they may not be a significant enough population to matter.
We need to delineate digital information, from its generation, through storage, transmission, receipt, and possible destruction, and determine what who owns it at each point, how that can be enforced, how it's paid for, and who can access it and how. This is a collective "we," -- this is a big project, with a huge potential for conflict. Such a project would also need to identify possible future directions that technology could move.
In the real IT world, the only way to really keep your data secure is to have no connection whatsoever with the outside world -- no internet, no email connection, nothing except for a cleanroom, with a single validated and vetted input source. It's what mainframes are good at, but it's not what we do any more.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Disagree with your characterization. I know what US v. Miller says. And congress was swift to respond with 12 U.S.C. § 3401 et seq. (A law to give more freedoms to thw People. But then the Patriot Act changed that.
Yes - freedoms that we did have were taken away. Legally. For you and me. (I believe it was what did in Spitzer - the mandatory reporting of $10k transactions.). In the search for terrorism they bring up other matters.
The Patriot Act took these liberties. We had a right to privacy. By law. The law changed and took it away. But please note - this is what we know about. Yes, I am suggesting the probability that there is more and worse out there that we don't know of.
I request that the government to less to make me safe and allow me more opportunity to protect myself, my family and even others.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Yes - freedoms that we did have were taken away. Legally. For you and me. (I believe it was what did in Spitzer - the mandatory reporting of $10k transactions.). In the search for terrorism they bring up other matters.
The Patriot Act took these liberties. We had a right to privacy. By law. The law changed and took it away. But please note - this is what we know about. Yes, I am suggesting the probability that there is more and worse out there that we don't know of.
I request that the government to less to make me safe and allow me more opportunity to protect myself, my family and even others.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
wmw999
Who here is willing to really accept that their desire for privacy might, in fact, result in an attack not being intercepted?
Wendy P.
I am a greedy bastard: I believe I deserve both security and liberty(privacy)... AND I believe that I should be able to expect my country to provide me with both.
Which is to say, I should not have to allow my country to break one law in order for it to uphold another.
I felt the same way a few months ago when we were talking about the Constitutionality of the "near but not on the border" Border Patrol Checkpoints. I thought (and still do) it fair to demand that my country protect my borders without surrendering my own Constitutional rights.
Another way: I'm not saying "don't do this," I'm saying "do it right."
Same thing here, in a different light.
Elvisio "seems simple" Rodriguez
jcd11235 0
lawrocketDisagree with your characterization. I know what US v. Miller says. And congress was swift to respond with 12 U.S.C. § 3401 et seq. (A law to give more freedoms to thw People. But then the Patriot Act changed that.
Congress giveth, and Congress taketh away. That happens. People are free to philosophically oppose the law and lobby their lawmakers to change it. But when an administration operates within the bounds of the law, even if we disagree with that law, complaints about abuse of power or about the president trampling all over the Constitution, etc., tend to lack merit.
Regarding telecommunications, Congress did little in response to Smith v. Maryland to expand the rights of the people.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
sfzombie13 324
i disagree. i will not surrender liberty for security. first off, there is no such thing as 100% security. but then, i have extreme views on that, i guess. i have been reading lately on the founding fathers, really good shit. i am beginning to get a better insight on their thoughts and feelings. turns out that a lot of them actually started wanting to split up the country early on.
and wendy, even then, it's not safe. stuxnet? was that what took out iran's nuclear project?
and wendy, even then, it's not safe. stuxnet? was that what took out iran's nuclear project?
_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes
your citation begins with references evidence collected (and contested) by subpoena, which is really different from this information being freely available without any notification.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites