4 ms·

The breaches of law you mentioned are of a specific kind, and I wager that the agencies did not agree in every case that they breached the law. On the other ha

by madez 8y ago

The breaches of law you mentioned are of a specific kind, and I wager that the agencies did not agree in every case that they breached the law. On the other hand, blatantly stealing their tools instead of buying them is not the same kind of breaching the law, and it is obvious to everbody that it is illegal. Also, even more so than persons, institutions can behave contradictivly when viewed from the outside. From within it may seem consistent and sound to surveil everybody and legally buying the tools they use for it. The evil is banal.

burfog 8y ago
They surely don't believe they have breached the law. For example: The fact that the phone spying case was even accepted by the Supreme Court should be enough to confirm that the law wasn't clear. Had the law been clear, the NSA would have lost in a lower court and the Supreme Court would have refused to consider the case.
- sfifs 8y ago
  >> The fact that the phone spying case was even accepted by the Supreme Court should be enough to confirm that the law wasn't clear. That's not actually the way legality works. If the law is unclear, the justice department will provide their interpretation (which will typically give more power to the government). If you disagree with the interpretation and are affected by it, you are free to challenge it in a court of law which will clarify. Or you can lobby lawmakers to change the law. This is different from how for instance organizational guidelines work in private industry - in case of ambiguity, you will ask for a clarification from the author. That option is basically not available because laws are made by the legislature which is a body distinct from the executive.
A2017U1 8y ago
Specific. You truly say that with a straight face? Tempted to name 50 blatant programs off the top of my head but I'll start with one because the pathetic excuses that usually follow sum it up succinctly. MKULTRA. Tell me what you think of that government taxpayer funded program. I'm all ears.
- frostburg 8y ago
  They're very specific, you seem to be rather disingenuous in this line of argument. It's very easy: human-rights violations with thin legal justification, sure - routine low-level stuff like petty theft and copyright infringement, probably not. The decision makers there are biased towards exactly the kind of person that would murder for a perceived greater good but wouldn't park out of bounds.

by madez 8y ago

burfog 8y ago

They surely don't believe they have breached the law. For example: The fact that the phone spying case was even accepted by the Supreme Court should be enough to confirm that the law wasn't clear. Had the law been clear, the NSA would have lost in a lower court and the Supreme Court would have refused to consider the case.

sfifs 8y ago
>> The fact that the phone spying case was even accepted by the Supreme Court should be enough to confirm that the law wasn't clear. That's not actually the way legality works. If the law is unclear, the justice department will provide their interpretation (which will typically give more power to the government). If you disagree with the interpretation and are affected by it, you are free to challenge it in a court of law which will clarify. Or you can lobby lawmakers to change the law. This is different from how for instance organizational guidelines work in private industry - in case of ambiguity, you will ask for a clarification from the author. That option is basically not available because laws are made by the legislature which is a body distinct from the executive.

A2017U1 8y ago

Specific. You truly say that with a straight face? Tempted to name 50 blatant programs off the top of my head but I'll start with one because the pathetic excuses that usually follow sum it up succinctly. MKULTRA. Tell me what you think of that government taxpayer funded program. I'm all ears.

frostburg 8y ago
They're very specific, you seem to be rather disingenuous in this line of argument. It's very easy: human-rights violations with thin legal justification, sure - routine low-level stuff like petty theft and copyright infringement, probably not. The decision makers there are biased towards exactly the kind of person that would murder for a perceived greater good but wouldn't park out of bounds.