Comey's Tweet - 9/13/2016

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

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

We are talking about current legal reality, not what you (and perhaps I) might wish. Have the courts put any particular class of data off limits to the judiciary, even if they do everything "by the book"? Is there anything they are barred from obtaining as long as they have a warrant? I'm not asking what you think should be, I'm asking what actually is the case right now.

I think it is unlikely that any court would say the judiciary can get a warrant to search your paper records, but your electronic records are forever off limits. Given what the courts already permit, it seems there are no limits as long as probable cause is demonstrated. Whether or not that should be the case is a different matter. Certainly the 9th and 10th amendments have not been interpreted to say electronic records can never be searched under any circumstance, or that the police cannot enforce wiretaps on Thursdays, or whatever it is you have in mind (but have not said) regarding what should be included under "absolute privacy". Perhaps there should be some types of information the judiciary should never under any circumstances be allowed to gather, but where in the Constitution is there any guidance about where the boundary between permissible and impermissible may lie? I assume you would at least concede that the judiciary should be allowed to gather some information, otherwise they would never be able to investigate any crimes and they might as well disband.

Maybe in the future if the government develops a mind reading machine, I would hope the courts would decide that is going too far.

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)

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi Paul,

Quote

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

I think tht it will always be 'fluid' to some extent. These are the types of things that courts decide.

Our gov't. IMO is set up so that the courts make decisions of these types.

From what I 'interpret' of your posts on this, you want certain things kept secret under all circumstances. I cannot give you the line & verse from Supreme Court rulings, but I do think that they have usually interpreted these types of things as to being OK if with a warrant from a court.

IMO that is how things are in this country. Some of us might not like it, but it is the law of the land.

Jerry Baumchen

[quade 4]

Not specifically at you Jerry, but you're the last message I'm seeing and just hit reply.

I'm not as old as dirt. Really, I'm not.

However, it strikes me the attitudes of some people in this thread reflect a sort of overall view I see today that I could swear would have been completely unacceptable in my earlier life.

Is it just me or has the general population, for all sorts of reasons, just sort of given up on the concept of privacy?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Rick 67]

quade

Not specifically at you Jerry, but you're the last message I'm seeing and just hit reply.

I'm not as old as dirt. Really, I'm not.

However, it strikes me the attitudes of some people in this thread reflect a sort of overall view I see today that I could swear would have been completely unacceptable in my earlier life.

Is it just me or has the general population, for all sorts of reasons, just sort of given up on the concept of privacy?

good point I cringe sometimes at the things people post on social media that I would never think of making public. It could be the same kind of mind set that nothing is private anymore

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi Paul,

Quote

I'm not as old as dirt. Really, I'm not.

Well, you're younger than me.

I do not think anything has changed. I think that for the entire life of this country, nothing has been 100% private if a proper warrant has been issued.

As for one's cell phone, computer, etc; well, that is just a change in technology, not a change in the decision(s) of the Supremes.

Jerry Baumchen

PS) IMO if you want something absolutely private, then don't say it, don't write & don't post it.

[quade 4]

JerryBaumchen

IMO if you want something absolutely private, then don't say it, don't write & don't post it.

That is, in my opinion, one of the absolute worse attitudes that commonly circulates regarding this topic.

Think about it.

Think about all the conversations you've ever had in your life, or even just within the last 6 months, or not even all of them but just the ones regarding either Hillary or Trump.

Now, regardless of which side you come down on, imagine for a moment the "evil" one comes into office and decides to go a little crazy and start taking revenge on his or her detractors. Not just a little revenge, but 1938 Germany style. Or hell, 2016 Philippine style "war on drugs" stuff.

Here's my point . . . you do NOT know what the future holds.

Do you really believe the government still ought to have access to every conversation? What about a cell phone's microphone that, as far as you are concerned is turned off?

To me that's crazy talk.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

Quote

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.

The Constitution is pretty clear on what constitutes a legitimate warrant:

Quote

...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.

There is no such thing as a blanket warrant. The Courts (when asked) have been pretty clear on that.

You're not complaining about the lack of absolute privacy. You're complaining about warrantless searches. The two issues are not the same.

- Dan G

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

However, it strikes me the attitudes of some people in this thread reflect a sort of overall view I see today that I could swear would have been completely unacceptable in my earlier life.

Is it just me or has the general population, for all sorts of reasons, just sort of given up on the concept of privacy?

It is astonishing to me that someone as obviously intelligent as you cannot distinguish between someone stating a fact and someone approving of that fact.

About half a million people die each year from malaria, most of them children under 5 years old. That is a fact. Does stating that fact mean I am happy that those people die, that I'm OK with it? Is there room in your world view to consider the possibility that I work long hours in part to stop people from dying of malaria?

Or would you prefer that I say no-one ever dies of malaria, because that is the world I'd like to see?

If I say there is racism in our society, why does that make me a racist?

The attitude you have displayed in this thread makes it impossible to have any kind of a discussion. If I cannot state a simple truth without being attacked as if I wholeheartedly endorsed that truth as a good thing, then fuck it. I'm done with you.

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]

DanG

There is no such thing as a blanket warrant.

I'm reasonably certain you need to read some of the analysis of the Snowden documents.

An excellent book on the subject is "No Place to Hide" by Greenwald.

https://www.amazon.com/No-Place-Hide-Snowden-Surveillance/dp/162779073X

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wmw999 2,589]

As long as there have been people willing (and anxious) for either money or publicity in exchange for someone else's dirt, those conversations or transactions haven't really been private. I came to that realization sometime in the 70's.

Consider the background checking done now on candidates (or anyone else), you can find some goober willing to share someone else's private information. No warrant needed.

The definition of acceptable for a warrant has definitely loosened over the years, particularly after 9/11. I don't like that, but, well, all I can do about it is vote, and mind my p's and q's.

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)

[Rick 67]

I do think people used to get more outraged over invasions of privacy. I agree with Quade it seems like it is either accepted more now or maybe expected is the word I am looking for.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[Bolas 5]

The San Bernardino iPhone incident showed two things.

Encryption technologies are slightly ahead of encryption breaking tech.

US companies can't be forced to create backdoors for their products but any data they have access to, they can be made to share.

My prediction is the next phase of cloud storage and cloud computing will focus much more on encryption of storage and processing so the cloud providers themselves have no access to the data they host: warrant or not.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[kallend 2,150]

GeorgiaDon

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."

And to refresh your memory, you wrote: " 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?"

My comment was a general and relevant observation that a right does not have to be listed in the Constitution (as amended) in order for the people to have that right.

...

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

[DanG 1]

Quote

I'm reasonably certain you need to read some of the analysis of the Snowden documents.

An excellent book on the subject is "No Place to Hide" by Greenwald.

I'm reasonably certain we are talking past each other.

I agree that the NSA and other agencies illegally gathered information on citizens and non-citizens alike. Where we are talking past each other is on whether or not it is possible for the government to gather the same information legally. I argue that it is possible for the government to gather any information on you that they want, if they acquire a judicial warrant to do so.

You seem to be arguing that the government thinks it doesn't need a warrant. That may be so, but that's got nothing with whether or not they could get a warrant and acquire the information constitutionally.

- Dan G

[JerryBaumchen 1,468]

Hi Dan,

Quote

I argue that it is possible for the government to gather any information on you that they want, if they acquire a judicial warrant to do so.

As do I. And, I am of the belief that this has been ruled on enough times by the Supremes to make this discussion moot.

Jerry Baumchen

[quade 4]

DanG

I argue that it is possible for the government to gather any information on you that they want, if they acquire a judicial warrant to do so.

You seem to be arguing that the government thinks it doesn't need a warrant. That may be so, but that's got nothing with whether or not they could get a warrant and acquire the information constitutionally.

No. What the Snowden documents reveal is they "collect everything" first, then it is available to several database search engines which anyone with access has virtually unlimited access to. IF they think it will be an issue, then they go to the FISA Court which has NEVER turned them down.

If they did a search on DanG and known associates, it would turn up not only every email you've made in the last several years, but all of its contents and everyone involved on the CC list. It would turn up every taco you've bought with a credit card and by cross referencing cell phone location would also know who you ate them with.

The really sad thing is, this has only been involved in a few actual terrorist cases, but has been mostly used for the "war on drugs" and corporate espionage.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,119]

>Would you be okay with the government using a device that can read your mind?

No, but the Constitution currently allows it.

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

No, and the Constitution currently forbids it.