3 ms·

> And as a practical matter, deciding this question a few years from now is more likely to result in a favorable outcome than deciding it now. You believe tha

> And as a practical matter, deciding this question a few years from now is more likely to result in a favorable outcome than deciding it now. You believe that waiting until mass surveillance has been going on for a solid generation to decide is going to return a favorable (illegal, got to stop) outcome? How much further do we have to kick the can down the road while the initial powers that were given are expanded even more with each passing year? I think history has shown the outcome to be the complete opposite...just looking at the last 15 years has shown us that if you crack open the door (the PATRIOT ACT) to surveillance, it is only going to get pushed completely open a little further down the line. And it will soon become so commonplace that things that wouldn't even be considered at the beginning (CISA) are now enacted with little blowback...if not praise. Edit: spelling & grammar

rayiner 11y ago
The overall trajectory of Constitutional protections is to get more broadly interpreted over time. E.g. the first time the Supreme Court considered wire taps in the 1920s, it decided people could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in phone conversations because they were sharing them with the phone company. It was only in the 1960s that they reversed course and held that a warrant was required for wiretaps.
- disposition2 11y ago
  Touche. Although, the 2nd is probably the exception to that rule. Which, a bit off topic but I was surprised to not see the NRA railing against CISA for the possibility of gun buyers being put on a 'list' (should a company related to the purchase get hacked and hand over information to the government)
- zaroth 11y ago
  Just a counter-point, Supreme Court has dealt with wiretapping / lawful intercept long before that and the 4th has seen more than its due share of erossion since the invention of the telegraph where we started with the belief that those communications were inviolable. (anti-third party doctrine!) Discussed a couple weeks ago, there's a beautiful opinion from 1879 which I wish was still in vogue today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10418845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10418845
- chimeracoder 11y ago
  > The overall trajectory of Constitutional protections is to get more broadly interpreted over time I'm not sure that that's the case, and at least on the issue of the executive powers of the federal government, it's pretty straightforward to argue that the federal powers specifically have increased over time. For just one example, marijuana prohibition in 1937 was implemented as an 'impossible tax'[0] specifically because it was believed that Congress didn't have the authority to authorize prohibition of possession of a plant within the states[1][2]. The first prosecution was for failing to pay the tax, not "technically" for possession. Nowadays, the argument that Congress lacks this power seems quaint! I'd be willing to say that the overall trajectory of Constitutional protections is a mixed bag, but I'm really not convinced that overall the trend is towards increased Constitutional protections, particularly when it comes to protection from the executive arm of the federal government. [0] for those who don't know: possession was legal only if you had a stamp that demonstrated you'd paid tax on it. The stamps were impossible to get, therefore the product was impossible to possess legally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#Operation_of_the_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#Oper... [1] The 18th amendment appears to contradict this reasoning, but it actually serves as an example of this. First, the Marihuana[sic] Tax Act was different from a constitutional amendment (which required the approval of the states). Secondly, even alcohol prohibition was implemented in a similarly back-door way (banning "manufacture, sale, or transportation", but not explicitly possession). [2] (Yes, Congress is the legislative branch rather than the executive, but the question was whether the executive branch can actually obtain these powers at all)
- btilly 11y ago
  I would say that the overall trajectory is towards more government power. As for telephone wiretaps, I think technology is a perfectly adequate explanation. Most people in the 1920s were on party lines. It was common to have the operator who connected you, and multiple neighbors, listening to your call. There really was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that environment. In the 1960s the system had been upgraded to the point where most people had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their calls.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  The PSTN also migrated from human operator-switched connections to machine-routed connections at some point. In the earliest days of telephony, the phone company operator had to listen to at least the first part of your call, so that you could tell her to whom you wanted to be connected. They didn't always stop listening after plugging the appropriate cables into their switchboards. After machine switching took over, the expectation of a third party listening in on your call disappeared. So it might not have entirely been a broadening in the interpretation of privacy protections, but a change in the reasonable expectations of the public. By that measure, you could theoretically make wiretaps legal again by illegally tapping calls for so long that the public expects that you're always doing it. Think of it like an adverse possession of your privacy.

rayiner 11y ago

The overall trajectory of Constitutional protections is to get more broadly interpreted over time. E.g. the first time the Supreme Court considered wire taps in the 1920s, it decided people could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in phone conversations because they were sharing them with the phone company. It was only in the 1960s that they reversed course and held that a warrant was required for wiretaps.

disposition2 11y ago
Touche. Although, the 2nd is probably the exception to that rule. Which, a bit off topic but I was surprised to not see the NRA railing against CISA for the possibility of gun buyers being put on a 'list' (should a company related to the purchase get hacked and hand over information to the government)
zaroth 11y ago
Just a counter-point, Supreme Court has dealt with wiretapping / lawful intercept long before that and the 4th has seen more than its due share of erossion since the invention of the telegraph where we started with the belief that those communications were inviolable. (anti-third party doctrine!) Discussed a couple weeks ago, there's a beautiful opinion from 1879 which I wish was still in vogue today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10418845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10418845
chimeracoder 11y ago
> The overall trajectory of Constitutional protections is to get more broadly interpreted over time I'm not sure that that's the case, and at least on the issue of the executive powers of the federal government, it's pretty straightforward to argue that the federal powers specifically have increased over time. For just one example, marijuana prohibition in 1937 was implemented as an 'impossible tax'[0] specifically because it was believed that Congress didn't have the authority to authorize prohibition of possession of a plant within the states[1][2]. The first prosecution was for failing to pay the tax, not "technically" for possession. Nowadays, the argument that Congress lacks this power seems quaint! I'd be willing to say that the overall trajectory of Constitutional protections is a mixed bag, but I'm really not convinced that overall the trend is towards increased Constitutional protections, particularly when it comes to protection from the executive arm of the federal government. [0] for those who don't know: possession was legal only if you had a stamp that demonstrated you'd paid tax on it. The stamps were impossible to get, therefore the product was impossible to possess legally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#Operation_of_the_act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937#Oper... [1] The 18th amendment appears to contradict this reasoning, but it actually serves as an example of this. First, the Marihuana[sic] Tax Act was different from a constitutional amendment (which required the approval of the states). Secondly, even alcohol prohibition was implemented in a similarly back-door way (banning "manufacture, sale, or transportation", but not explicitly possession). [2] (Yes, Congress is the legislative branch rather than the executive, but the question was whether the executive branch can actually obtain these powers at all)
btilly 11y ago
I would say that the overall trajectory is towards more government power. As for telephone wiretaps, I think technology is a perfectly adequate explanation. Most people in the 1920s were on party lines. It was common to have the operator who connected you, and multiple neighbors, listening to your call. There really was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that environment. In the 1960s the system had been upgraded to the point where most people had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their calls.
logfromblammo 11y ago
The PSTN also migrated from human operator-switched connections to machine-routed connections at some point. In the earliest days of telephony, the phone company operator had to listen to at least the first part of your call, so that you could tell her to whom you wanted to be connected. They didn't always stop listening after plugging the appropriate cables into their switchboards. After machine switching took over, the expectation of a third party listening in on your call disappeared. So it might not have entirely been a broadening in the interpretation of privacy protections, but a change in the reasonable expectations of the public. By that measure, you could theoretically make wiretaps legal again by illegally tapping calls for so long that the public expects that you're always doing it. Think of it like an adverse possession of your privacy.