Comey's Tweet - 9/13/2016

[quade 4]

What the capital F?

Quote

Dir. Comey: No such thing as absolute privacy in America–no place out of judicial reach. This was the bargain our founders struck. #ASIS16

Source;
https://twitter.com/fbi/status/775720770471202816


Screen grab below just in case he pulls it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Elisha 1]

DON'T LIKE THIS!

Bargin WHICH founders struck? The FBI founders? Surely not the "Founding Fathers".

[crazydaisy315 0]

Well the right to privacy does not exist in the Constitution, it was only through the supreme court's interpretation of the 4th amendment (maybe also 5th and 9th), but it was never explicitly stated as a right to privacy.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Not saying that I agree with either the factualness or the sentiment of Comey's tweet, but can you point me to the part of the constitution that specifies places or activities that are "off limits" to the judicial system even with a warrant or court order? Is there such a thing as a constitutional "safe harbor" where people are beyond the law? I can't think of any circumstances where the police/FBI are barred from even investigating a potential crime, as long as they get a warrant. In that sense, might it not be true that there is no such thing as absolute privacy? Of course, they may not be able to get in to where they want to search, due to encryption for example, but that is not the same as saying they aren't even allowed to try.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[DanG 1]

The tweet is factual but still shitty.

- Dan G

[GeorgiaDon 380]

DanG

The tweet is factual but still shitty.

I agree it could have been stated in a less provocative fashion, or perhaps it would have been better to have said nothing at all, but I don't know anything about the context. Was he responding to some statement?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 4]

He was tweeting WRT a security convention being held in Florida this week. At least that was what the hashtag was about, but the tweet came out of the blue as far as I can see.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,150]

GeorgiaDon

Not saying that I agree with either the factualness or the sentiment of Comey's tweet, but can you point me to the part of the constitution that specifies places or activities that are "off limits" to the judicial system even with a warrant or court order? Is there such a thing as a constitutional "safe harbor" where people are beyond the law? I can't think of any circumstances where the police/FBI are barred from even investigating a potential crime, as long as they get a warrant. In that sense, might it not be true that there is no such thing as absolute privacy? Of course, they may not be able to get in to where they want to search, due to encryption for example, but that is not the same as saying they aren't even allowed to try.

Don

We do have rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution as amended. The Declaration of Independence, for example, lists some of them as being self evident.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

We do have rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution as amended. The Declaration of Independence, for example, lists some of them as being self evident.

Of course we do. Comey is not talking about our right to choose our own career, or who to marry, or to refuse medical treatment and so on. He is talking about "absolute privacy", meaning (as I take it) privacy that cannot be breached by the judiciary even with a warrant. Does the constitution define a place you can go, or put things, that the judiciary is barred from ever getting a warrant to search? It seems to me that as long as the judiciary can (with a warrant) search all of your property, all of your bank/phone/whatever records, listen in on all your conversations, and so on, it is hard to argue we have any right to "absolute privacy". Our privacy rights are conditional, and they can be set aside if the judiciary can show probable cause. Whether or not that is a good thing is a different matter.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 4]

GeorgiaDon

Of course we do. Comey is not talking about our right to choose our own career, or who to marry, or to refuse medical treatment and so on. He is talking about "absolute privacy", meaning (as I take it) privacy that cannot be breached by the judiciary even with a warrant.

Would you be okay with the government using a device that can read your mind?
(BTW, this is actually in the works.)

Barring that, would you be okay with torture to to extract information from someone?

If not, then why not? After all, you just said he was correct in talking about "absolute privacy." How far down the road is "absolute"?

Should the government be allowed to compel you to give up memorized passwords?

Oh oh . . . I think we may have hit a snag here because that's a violation of the 5th.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GeorgiaDon 380]

I don't understand the intent or reason for the tone of your questions. I have not said anything to indicate that I agree with any such government activity. What do you think Comey meant by "a right to absolute privacy"? The relevant question is, does such a right exist, which cannot be answered unless we can define what constitutes absolute privacy. I think privacy is a different issue from self-incrimination. The police can get a warrant to search your devices, but you do not have to give them information to break the encryption. That is quite different from "absolute privacy", which to me would be a situation where the police are barred from ever getting a warrant or trying to search your devices under any circumstances. You may, of course, have a different idea of what is meant by absolute privacy.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 4]

GeorgiaDon

You may, of course, have a different idea of what is meant by absolute privacy.

I probably do.

To me, some things can and ought to be able to be held as private.

When the head of a government agency is telling the world I don't have the right to "absolute privacy" to me that means they believe they have the right to ANYTHING they can get their hands on, at any time, with or without my knowledge.

They can, in a popular phrase used in the current intel community, "collect it all."

Every text, every email, every video chat, every IOT device including home security and web cameras.

Do they need a warrant? Technically, yes. In practical terms, they don't think so because the data, in large part, has already been collected.

How much do you know about the Snowden documents?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,465]

quade

He was tweeting WRT a security convention being held in Florida this week. At least that was what the hashtag was about, but the tweet came out of the blue as far as I can see.

It was not Comey's tweet. It was a tweet by the FBI social media department highlighting comments Comey made during his address at this convention. I have a feeling there is some context missing.

[quade 4]

Good pendantry there.

Fact remains he said it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,150]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

We do have rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution as amended. The Declaration of Independence, for example, lists some of them as being self evident.

Of course we do. Comey is not talking about our right to choose our own career, or who to marry, or to refuse medical treatment and so on. He is talking about "absolute privacy", meaning (as I take it) privacy that cannot be breached by the judiciary even with a warrant. Does the constitution define a place you can go, or put things, that the judiciary is barred from ever getting a warrant to search? It seems to me that as long as the judiciary can (with a warrant) search all of your property, all of your bank/phone/whatever records, listen in on all your conversations, and so on, it is hard to argue we have any right to "absolute privacy". Our privacy rights are conditional, and they can be set aside if the judiciary can show probable cause. Whether or not that is a good thing is a different matter.

Don

There is, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately many American conservatives think these "universal" rights aren't possessed by Americans.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

quade

Good pendantry there.

Fact remains he said it.

Assuming you meant pedantry, I don't think differentiating between somebody tweeting themselves and somebody quoting somebody else in a tweet as a minor detail. It also highlights, as I said in my post that likely context is missing.

But please do get all outraged over 140 characters without context.

[quade 4]

Quote

"Assuming you meant pedantry..."

It's what I get for writing on a cell phone during my commute. ;)

Quote

But please do get all outraged over 140 characters without context.

The only context required is to understand who Comey is (the head of the FBI) and what he's been pushing for in the US (a backdoor into encryption of every device).

Seriously, what more is needed?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Seriously, what more is needed?

Transcript of his speech, so you can put it in context an then be rightfully outraged

[quade 4]

SkyDekker

Quote

Seriously, what more is needed?

Transcript of his speech, so you can put it in context an then be rightfully outraged

Assuming you meant "and" . . . ;)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,465]

So pendantic.

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

There is, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately many American conservatives think these "universal" rights aren't possessed by Americans.

Just to refresh your memory, the quote in question was: "No such thing as absolute privacy in America–no place out of judicial reach."
We are not talking about freedom of conscience, freedom or religion, or any of the other important freedoms listed in the Universal Declaration. I did not see any mention of "absolute privacy" (in those or other words) listed in the Declaration.

What do you think Comey meant by the term "absolute privacy...no place out of judicial reach"? To me, "absolute" means complete, 100% pure, without any cracks or loopholes. To me, it seems obvious that the quote can only refer to a place the judiciary can never look under any circumstances, not even with a warrant, court order, or NSA security letter. A place where you can put information (or maybe go in person) where the US Constitution gives assurance the judiciary can never look for that information (or for you). Does the Constitution create such a place? It lists many things the government cannot do, such as establishing a state religion, and in other places it limits the governments power, for example by establishing due process procedures before you can be detained or have your property searched. I am not aware that it mentions privacy explicitly at all, the concept of privacy rights must be assumed for many of the described rights to exist. Is there anything in the Constitution that says or even logically implies the existence of a "safe place" the judiciary may never even try to look at? I don't see anything like that.

Comey's quote (or whoever actually made it, assuming it is a paraphrase of something he actually did say) was undiplomatically blunt, but I don't think it was factually wrong.

I would suggest that if people want to create spaces forever beyond the reach of the judiciary, even if the judiciary has followed all due process requirements, maybe they need to propose a constitutional amendment. That way we could at least debate the pros and cons of creating such a space.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 4]

What do you believe is the meaning of the 9th and 10th Amendments?

9th

Quote

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

10th

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Emphasis mine.

I see nowhere in the US Constitution allowing the government access to every piece of data regardless of judicial warrants. The implication ought to be that humans have a right to at least some complete privacy regarding some things.

To take the absolutist position that they have the right to have access everything is absurd.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Quote

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That means if they have a legitimate warrant they can search. Everywhere.

There's no clause that says, "except for the one super secret space where even a warrant is no good."

- Dan G

[quade 4]

DanG

That means if they have a legitimate warrant they can search.

Emphasis mine.

You do realize the definition of that is pretty fluid these days; yes?

That by their interpretation and in the name of "fighting the war on terrorism" many people in government, Comey included, have the idea there is a blanket "warrant" that spans the globe and includes everything. No real permission required (since to a great extent the material has already been collected) although they occasionally go through the motions.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkyDekker 1,465]

quade

***That means if they have a legitimate warrant they can search.

Emphasis mine.

You do realize the definition of that is pretty fluid these days; yes?

That by their interpretation and in the name of "fighting the war on terrorism" many people in government, Comey included, have the idea there is a blanket "warrant" that spans the globe and includes everything. No real permission required (since to a great extent the material has already been collected) although they occasionally go through the motions.

That's not an FBI or Constitution issue, that is a political issue.