3 ms·

>I was under the impression that what isn’t forbidden by law was legal by default. Even beyond that, personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4

>I was under the impression that what isn’t forbidden by law was legal by default. Even beyond that, personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4th amendment. Just because there was some executive actions and illegal laws made does not mean the 4th amendment suddenly disappears. No person or entity has the right to dragnet all communications.

unknown_error 5y ago
> personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4th amendment Yeaaaaah, let's just pretend Snowden and Manning never happened.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- willis936 5y ago
  I'm doing the opposite. Saying that the fed is actively engaging in illegal search and seizure is not ignoring the whistleblowers that brought the scope of the issue to light, it's acknowledging the issue.
  - unknown_error 5y ago
    The point is that the Constitution is largely meaningless, feel-good fluffery that has no actual bearing on which of our so-called rights are actually available to us. It's an aspirational document in a largely lawless land, more a historical oddity than the supreme anything. If you wait for legislators and law enforcement to fix personal privacy, you've already lost... the US law enforcement culture is actively hostile towards individual rights because it makes their jobs harder. The only real difference to, say, China, is that we like to pretend otherwise. But the reality in the ground is that nobody on the grid has had meaningful privacy for decades now.
    - willis936 5y ago
      >The point is that the Constitution is largely meaningless, feel-good fluffery that has no actual bearing on which of our so-called rights are actually available to us. IANAL but this sounds fundamentally wrong in every way I interpret it. The Constitution is a set of laws that cannot be contradicted by any other law, executive action, or judicial action, with the exception of an amendment.
      - unknown_error 5y ago
        It can and often has been simply ignored.
kergonath 5y ago
> No person or entity has the right to dragnet all communications. Indeed. And the fact that this is not recognised as a fundamental human right is a serious limitation of the charter and universal declaration. And yet, it comes up regularly.

unknown_error 5y ago

> personal privacy from the government is enshrined in the 4th amendment Yeaaaaah, let's just pretend Snowden and Manning never happened.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
willis936 5y ago
I'm doing the opposite. Saying that the fed is actively engaging in illegal search and seizure is not ignoring the whistleblowers that brought the scope of the issue to light, it's acknowledging the issue.
- unknown_error 5y ago
  The point is that the Constitution is largely meaningless, feel-good fluffery that has no actual bearing on which of our so-called rights are actually available to us. It's an aspirational document in a largely lawless land, more a historical oddity than the supreme anything. If you wait for legislators and law enforcement to fix personal privacy, you've already lost... the US law enforcement culture is actively hostile towards individual rights because it makes their jobs harder. The only real difference to, say, China, is that we like to pretend otherwise. But the reality in the ground is that nobody on the grid has had meaningful privacy for decades now.
  - willis936 5y ago
    >The point is that the Constitution is largely meaningless, feel-good fluffery that has no actual bearing on which of our so-called rights are actually available to us. IANAL but this sounds fundamentally wrong in every way I interpret it. The Constitution is a set of laws that cannot be contradicted by any other law, executive action, or judicial action, with the exception of an amendment.
    - unknown_error 5y ago
      It can and often has been simply ignored.

kergonath 5y ago

> No person or entity has the right to dragnet all communications. Indeed. And the fact that this is not recognised as a fundamental human right is a serious limitation of the charter and universal declaration. And yet, it comes up regularly.