3 ms·

You can’t hold a random analyst, usually a contractor and not a “government official”, for not sharing your opinion on what a 200-year old, intentionally vague,

You can’t hold a random analyst, usually a contractor and not a “government official”, for not sharing your opinion on what a 200-year old, intentionally vague, document meant about who-was-contacting-who on a pice of technology that wasn’t invented. Let alone a law that was, albeit controversial at the time, in place for almost 20 years. Would you prefer that your public servants follow the law... or do whatever they feel like? Do what they personally think is the most moral, regardless of what actually elected officials have told them to do? Metadata is not the content of the calls but the data that the users put out to the world. The public facing data that’s necessary to even process communication in the first place. To use analogy, this would be like imprisoning a postal worker for reading the address on the outside of the envelope. The idea went that: if the intelligence community chooses to use that information for some thing other than just delivering the letter, that’s no more illegal than if you were to stand on a soapbox and scream all the bad things you did and the cops decided to hold some of that against you in court. IE. if you put it out there, than you don’t consider it a secret. But, now, (if the Supreme Court doesn’t step in), the policies will change in the state won’t be used anymore. And, those faithful public servants, who were following the law, will now follow the new law. And, the system works to protect your freedoms. Whereas, under your ideal, all the public servants that were following the law would be imprisoned and we’d have to find new public servants.. and threaten them with imprisonment if they don’t do what’s morally correct without respect to what they’re actually being told to do by the courts.

StillBored 6y ago
We hold low grade solders responsible for following illegal orders, even when those orders come from the very top of the chain of command. Although its giant double standard, despite knowledge of illegal acts frequently those higher in the chain of command aren't held responsible (aka, look up waterboarding).
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >We hold low grade solders responsible for following illegal orders, even when those orders come from the very top of the chain of command. We mostly don't unless we're looking for scapegoats.
- vonwoodson 6y ago
  You nailed it, but, “illegal orders” actually called “unlawful orders”. Soldiers and Sailors are only required to follow “lawful orders” not “moral orders”. The Patriot Act is The Law. Any person who is a conscientious objector to The Patriot Act would/should loose their job and clearance. The Edward Snowden case is simple: he betrayed the trust of all Americans when he broke his oath, and he deserves justice. There are proper checks and balances, and laws, that govern how constitutional violations should be reported and handled. Edward Snowden ignored all of these chose vigilanteism over the rule of law. He is no patriot.
Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
That's one of the weakest attempts to justify illegal and unconstitutional actions I've seen. > Metadata is not the content of the calls but the data that the users put out to the world. So when I make a call to my private friends, that's "me putting data into the world"? And it is ok for everyone to read it because I did not write it on a paper and instead used the phone? That's how you treat the constitution's "persons, houses, papers, and effects"? Really? This is not how most people would even think about their information. There is nothing vague about it.
- vonwoodson 6y ago
  If you use a third party to transmit data, then yes. If it’s not literally “in the envelope” then it’s public data. Weak argument or not, that’s how the laws work. Think about that very hard next time you type something into the Google search box/make a phone call/send a letter/post something on hacker news. Oh, and it’s not the Big Bad Government that is collecting the metadata. Companies like Verizon sell this data. God bless privatization, right? And, I’ve literally heard the phrase “If we don’t buy this data, then they’ll just sell it to our adversaries.” Which I believe to be 100% true.

StillBored 6y ago

We hold low grade solders responsible for following illegal orders, even when those orders come from the very top of the chain of command. Although its giant double standard, despite knowledge of illegal acts frequently those higher in the chain of command aren't held responsible (aka, look up waterboarding).

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
>We hold low grade solders responsible for following illegal orders, even when those orders come from the very top of the chain of command. We mostly don't unless we're looking for scapegoats.
vonwoodson 6y ago
You nailed it, but, “illegal orders” actually called “unlawful orders”. Soldiers and Sailors are only required to follow “lawful orders” not “moral orders”. The Patriot Act is The Law. Any person who is a conscientious objector to The Patriot Act would/should loose their job and clearance. The Edward Snowden case is simple: he betrayed the trust of all Americans when he broke his oath, and he deserves justice. There are proper checks and balances, and laws, that govern how constitutional violations should be reported and handled. Edward Snowden ignored all of these chose vigilanteism over the rule of law. He is no patriot.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

That's one of the weakest attempts to justify illegal and unconstitutional actions I've seen. > Metadata is not the content of the calls but the data that the users put out to the world. So when I make a call to my private friends, that's "me putting data into the world"? And it is ok for everyone to read it because I did not write it on a paper and instead used the phone? That's how you treat the constitution's "persons, houses, papers, and effects"? Really? This is not how most people would even think about their information. There is nothing vague about it.

vonwoodson 6y ago
If you use a third party to transmit data, then yes. If it’s not literally “in the envelope” then it’s public data. Weak argument or not, that’s how the laws work. Think about that very hard next time you type something into the Google search box/make a phone call/send a letter/post something on hacker news. Oh, and it’s not the Big Bad Government that is collecting the metadata. Companies like Verizon sell this data. God bless privatization, right? And, I’ve literally heard the phrase “If we don’t buy this data, then they’ll just sell it to our adversaries.” Which I believe to be 100% true.