3 ms·

Okay, so the FBI can do whatever it wants, just like anyone else. When they get caught, they should go to jail, just like anyone else.

• paavokoya 10y ago
  I see a point on the horizon now, where the legal system starts targeting a minority of honest, privacy-minded citizens in an attempt to diminish holes in their radar.
• javajosh 10y ago
  Separation of powers is starting to lose it's luster. Nothing unites people more than a common enemy, and when "we the people" start to turn against "the government", the body of people that compose the government will tend to stick together tighter and tighter, to defend against the threat. One way this happens is favoritism, to give greater and greater leeway with the law to "us" (and less and less leeway to "them"). The problem with the judicial branch is the complexity of law, which makes it very difficult to second-guess it's outcomes. Our society has seemingly accepted this as inevitable, but a) I don't think it is, and b) if this complexity isn't addressed, then we will continue to suffer systematic abuse that comes from giving bad actors so much surface area to abuse and hide within.
  • cbanek 10y ago
    Agree completely. Another related problem is that both parts of the judicial system (the agents looking for crimes, and the courts, and now also the prison/parole system) are all in bed with each other, when they should be balancing each other out. Coupled with the fact that three letter agencies can get away with illegal activity themselves has really pushed over the boundaries of just government.
    • javajosh 10y ago
      >both parts of the judicial system (the agents looking for crimes, and the courts, and now also the prison/parole system) are all in bed with each other, when they should be balancing each other out. Ha, this actually means that we should have a self-similar separation of powers. I'm not sure that's what the framer's had in mind - I suspect they wanted the top-level powers to act coherently to balance each other out. Partly, though, I think it's about a misunderstanding about the nature of the "justice system". The police are, essentially, an extension of the Executive. This is true because police are not just "reactive", they execute. In the same way, any part of the government that "does stuff" is part of the executive. The DMV is Executive. Only the court itself, and the judges and support staff in the court, are Judicial. The blurred line is the "district attorney", who is responsible both for prosecuting on behalf of the state, and defending the state from action. Remarkably, the Executive has acquired a truly enormous amount of special treatment under the law. First, because the law itself exempts Executive workers from a wide variety of the law, and second because of the way the system works, the way Justice moves cases toward conclusion, which is filled with conflicts of interest that erode the separation between Justice and Executive, specifically within local law enforcement. Frankly, I really love the idea of self-similar separation of powers, even at the local level, where there is an adversarial tone between the Justice, Executive, and Legislative branches! Justice should be incentivised to dig up dirt on the Executive; the Executive should pride itself on knowing (and following) the law exactly (not "getting the bad guys"). The Legislative, in the end, should work to maintain rules that are simple, easy to understand, and which above all, maintain the adversarial relationship between powers at every level, federal, state, and local. This is also a good, strong foundation to discuss secrecy in government action - which is Executive action. What has happened with the introduction of the secret courts is the spreading of the secrecy between powers. This should be rejected for weakening the separation of powers, but also undermining the root of strength for each branch: validation by the people's opinion. The people cannot have an informed opinion if they do not know what their government is doing. (As a practical matter, this is non-trivial. The "Government's Understanding" of the world drives operations, which are often handed off to a team specializing in "doing stuff". So you have a large sea of (presumably fairly competent) analysts and operations staff working thousands, if not millions, of projects in every field in which the government interacts, which is essentially every field. It helps to start dividing the behavior into categories, which may or may not match up well with the USG org chart.) Sigh. Maybe complexity itself limits the size of a legitimate democracy, because how can we be good citizens without understanding fully the doings of our government, and how can we know that even without secrecy in place?
  • unclebucknasty 10y ago
    >the complexity of law...makes it very difficult to second-guess its outcomes. Yes. And, this is coupled with the government's determination to exploit the letter of the law against its own citizenry; searching for loopholes and generous interpretations that clearly circumvent Constitutional intent. The government is essentially attempting to establish a parallel set of precedents for new, technology-enabled capabilities. This "hacking happens" rationale is incredible. And, asserting that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on an IP address is equally stunning. At the end of the day, it is deference to the spirit of the Constitutional limitations placed on government that should guide the outcomes of these complex cases. That single litmus test would have a powerful clarifying effect on the adjudication process and on our ability to discern the validity of outcomes.