9 ms·

>So yeah, thanks for nothing -- namely for stating the ideal theoretical state of things -- but a lot of people out there need actual real-time protection, on t

>So yeah, thanks for nothing -- namely for stating the ideal theoretical state of things -- but a lot of people out there need actual real-time protection, on the spot. I don't understand why you would be upset that an organization that spends most of its time with court-related battles is, once again, dealing with court-related things. Should the EFF be putting boots on the ground in some sort of vigilante project that defends people in real time? What is the alternative you're suggesting the EFF do, if doing things in court is only worth a "thanks for nothing"? >Until there's true accountability and 100% transparency Where would this come from do you think? Because I'm thinking we start at the courts, but it seems like you might have other ideas. The EFF can't fix everything, especially not in airport backrooms of other various countries. But that does not mean there efforts are a waste.

pdimitar 5y ago
The only thing I'll say is that all of this has been parroted to death, ever since the 70s, and I am not seeing an improvement anywhere. People love this fuzzy feeling that they are "spreading awareness" and that "we must start somewhere" but historically, I've lived long enough to not see those make any difference so far. But I really don't want to debate. I came to state anecdotal evidence + opinion. Neither of which is an indisputable fact and I have not claimed otherwise.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  There is a vast difference between reaching the supreme court with your amicus briefs and "spreading awareness" in a blog post. They also aren't mutually exclusive. >But I really don't want to debate. I came to state anecdotal evidence + opinion. This is always funny to read. Write a strongly worded opinion, but refuse to engage with others. >but historically, I've lived long enough to not see those make any difference so far. Out of curiosity, in your long lived life, how many times have you seen amicus briefs written to the supreme court defending 5th amendment rights?
  - pdimitar 5y ago
    Funny -- only if you don't know what the words mean. Both are not strictly facts so any discussion around them is bound to derail into... exactly what's going on here.
    - ziddoap 5y ago
      My apologies, I forgot discussions can only happen involving strictly provable facts!
      - pdimitar 5y ago
        1. I have stated non-strictly factual observations. 2. I am being called out to prove them. 3. I cannot and I state this. 4. I get mocked for it. I get it, you are here to "win" but I'll keep calling things like they are. You keep patting yourself on the back, I don't mind.
  - samhw 5y ago
    > how many times have you seen amicus briefs written to the supreme court defending 5th amendment rights? Are you serious? There are 5th Amendment cases in the Supreme Court practically every month, to which plenty of groups will submit amicus briefs. I don't see how the tone of awe is warranted - it's really not a remotely unusual event. Hell, you can see countless ones on Google from the EFF alone: https://www.google.com/search?q=eff+supreme+court+amicus+brief https://www.google.com/search?q=eff+supreme+court+amicus+bri...

pdimitar 5y ago

The only thing I'll say is that all of this has been parroted to death, ever since the 70s, and I am not seeing an improvement anywhere. People love this fuzzy feeling that they are "spreading awareness" and that "we must start somewhere" but historically, I've lived long enough to not see those make any difference so far. But I really don't want to debate. I came to state anecdotal evidence + opinion. Neither of which is an indisputable fact and I have not claimed otherwise.

ziddoap 5y ago
There is a vast difference between reaching the supreme court with your amicus briefs and "spreading awareness" in a blog post. They also aren't mutually exclusive. >But I really don't want to debate. I came to state anecdotal evidence + opinion. This is always funny to read. Write a strongly worded opinion, but refuse to engage with others. >but historically, I've lived long enough to not see those make any difference so far. Out of curiosity, in your long lived life, how many times have you seen amicus briefs written to the supreme court defending 5th amendment rights?
- pdimitar 5y ago
  Funny -- only if you don't know what the words mean. Both are not strictly facts so any discussion around them is bound to derail into... exactly what's going on here.
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    My apologies, I forgot discussions can only happen involving strictly provable facts!
    - pdimitar 5y ago
      1. I have stated non-strictly factual observations. 2. I am being called out to prove them. 3. I cannot and I state this. 4. I get mocked for it. I get it, you are here to "win" but I'll keep calling things like they are. You keep patting yourself on the back, I don't mind.
- samhw 5y ago
  > how many times have you seen amicus briefs written to the supreme court defending 5th amendment rights? Are you serious? There are 5th Amendment cases in the Supreme Court practically every month, to which plenty of groups will submit amicus briefs. I don't see how the tone of awe is warranted - it's really not a remotely unusual event. Hell, you can see countless ones on Google from the EFF alone: https://www.google.com/search?q=eff+supreme+court+amicus+brief https://www.google.com/search?q=eff+supreme+court+amicus+bri...