12 ms·

I've been arguing against this stuff for over 6 years since I got heavily involved in discussions of the Patriot Act and the erosion of the Fourth Amendment in

I've been arguing against this stuff for over 6 years since I got heavily involved in discussions of the Patriot Act and the erosion of the Fourth Amendment in policy debate. This has been going on for a long time in various forms (FISA courts/warrants, National Security Letters, widespread [near universal] wiretapping, etc). I'm not sure what to do about it, or more importantly how to get people to care. It's like the article a while back (I'll try to find the source on it) that quoted a huge percentage of people as being opposed to government survelliance who only two years earlier had vehemently defended it as necessary for security. It's called a slippery slope for a reason, and every time the Patriot Act it is reauthorized without consideration is a slap in the face to the Founding Fathers who refused to sign the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. The thing that bothers me the most is the "Conservatives" (who are supposed to be in favor of small, unintrusive government) that hook-and-line fall for the "Patriotism" guise and excuse these government intrusions with, at times, absurd leaps of logic (that often fly in the face of evidence and statistics from the very organizations carrying out these actions).

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- seagreen 15y ago
  Which is why they're in a blind panic about Government spending/GDP? You need evidence if you're going to make broad claims like that.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    Sorry, you are right. I'll just delete the post.
protomyth 15y ago
Have you actually talked to any of the "conservatives" in the Tea Party? Most of them are super fed up with the TSA and all this crap. Heck, here is an example from today: http://www.redstate.com/tabithahale/2011/11/08/no-tsa-i-will-not-lift-my-skirt-for-you/ http://www.redstate.com/tabithahale/2011/11/08/no-tsa-i-will... If you notice, there is a Democrat in office who hasn't ended this crap, but kept it going in new ways.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  As long as the "Tea Party" is just a vocal minority within the Republican party there is little meaningful difference. Or can you actually point to an elected official that says, let's END social security, medicare, and farm subsidies, cut the DoD budget by 80% and gut the rest of the federal budget?
  - andrewpi 15y ago
    Doesn't Ron Paul basically say that?
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      Some of the time. Yet Paul’s plan would not return the country to the 1990s, let alone the 19th century. It calls for total outlays of $2.9 trillion in 2015, which is about as much as the federal government spent as recently as 2003, adjusted for inflation. http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/8278110-452/ron-pauls-budget-cuts-put-us-on-right-track.html http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/8278110-452/ron-paul... Counting savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Paul calls for $832 billion in cuts over four years, which would leave the Pentagon’s base budget in 2016 about 2 percent lower than it is now Now compare that with the perfectly reasonable idea of only spending 300 billion a year vs. 1,200 billion which is still more than any other country in the world. http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/20/weinstein-is-wrong-about-defense-spending-and-ron-paul/ http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/20/weinstein-is-wrong-about-d...
  - protomyth 15y ago
tptacek 15y ago
If you'd like to take a shot at it, feel free to try to convince me that I should be concerned about warrantless GPS tracking of subject cars. * I'm a good-faith commenter on HN and not inclined to troll you or piss you off for no reason. * I'm a liberal Democrat. * I donate money to the ACLU. * I do not think it is unreasonable for law enforcement agencies to designate, during the course of an actual investigation of a specific target, individual cars for GPS surveillance: - so long as removing the devices if they're detected isn't a crime - and research and development of technologies that shield cars from GPS monitoring isn't banned My reasoning: the police already have the clear and reasonable right to surveil cars from a distance either by ground patrol cars or aerial surveillance. That low-tech surveillance, which has never required a warrant, is actually more intrusive than a GPS device, in that it records your actual actions at each location. I'm not generally opposed to things that allow law enforcement to do a better job with fewer resources. I don't want to get into the Patriot Act or anything; we're talking about GPS transponders, which is a specific concept we can actually get our heads around. So let's try!
- cobrausn 15y ago
  Should they be able to plant a gps tracker on your clothing without a warrant? After all, they could get the same information by just following you. This is just easier. Why would it be any different than your car? It's not actually on your person, per se, it's on your clothing, which is different. Sure, the resolution of the determined movement is higher, but they could have an agent tail you to the same effect if you left your car. The line we draw in the sand is somewhat arbitrary, but it has to be there. I'm generally for putting the line further up the slippery slope.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    No, attaching anything to my clothing is extraordinarily intrusive, and the police do not in fact have the ability to monitor my every movement, unlike with my vehicle, where virtually all lawful movement is already subject to monitoring. I don't think this is an arbitrary or subtle difference; I think it's night and day. I specifically think that warrantless monitoring of vehicles is reasonable.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

seagreen 15y ago
Which is why they're in a blind panic about Government spending/GDP? You need evidence if you're going to make broad claims like that.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- rdtsc 15y ago
  Sorry, you are right. I'll just delete the post.

protomyth 15y ago

Have you actually talked to any of the "conservatives" in the Tea Party? Most of them are super fed up with the TSA and all this crap. Heck, here is an example from today: http://www.redstate.com/tabithahale/2011/11/08/no-tsa-i-will-not-lift-my-skirt-for-you/ http://www.redstate.com/tabithahale/2011/11/08/no-tsa-i-will... If you notice, there is a Democrat in office who hasn't ended this crap, but kept it going in new ways.

onemoreact 15y ago
As long as the "Tea Party" is just a vocal minority within the Republican party there is little meaningful difference. Or can you actually point to an elected official that says, let's END social security, medicare, and farm subsidies, cut the DoD budget by 80% and gut the rest of the federal budget?
- andrewpi 15y ago
  Doesn't Ron Paul basically say that?
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    Some of the time. Yet Paul’s plan would not return the country to the 1990s, let alone the 19th century. It calls for total outlays of $2.9 trillion in 2015, which is about as much as the federal government spent as recently as 2003, adjusted for inflation. http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/8278110-452/ron-pauls-budget-cuts-put-us-on-right-track.html http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/8278110-452/ron-paul... Counting savings from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Paul calls for $832 billion in cuts over four years, which would leave the Pentagon’s base budget in 2016 about 2 percent lower than it is now Now compare that with the perfectly reasonable idea of only spending 300 billion a year vs. 1,200 billion which is still more than any other country in the world. http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/20/weinstein-is-wrong-about-defense-spending-and-ron-paul/ http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/20/weinstein-is-wrong-about-d...
- protomyth 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

If you'd like to take a shot at it, feel free to try to convince me that I should be concerned about warrantless GPS tracking of subject cars. * I'm a good-faith commenter on HN and not inclined to troll you or piss you off for no reason. * I'm a liberal Democrat. * I donate money to the ACLU. * I do not think it is unreasonable for law enforcement agencies to designate, during the course of an actual investigation of a specific target, individual cars for GPS surveillance: - so long as removing the devices if they're detected isn't a crime - and research and development of technologies that shield cars from GPS monitoring isn't banned My reasoning: the police already have the clear and reasonable right to surveil cars from a distance either by ground patrol cars or aerial surveillance. That low-tech surveillance, which has never required a warrant, is actually more intrusive than a GPS device, in that it records your actual actions at each location. I'm not generally opposed to things that allow law enforcement to do a better job with fewer resources. I don't want to get into the Patriot Act or anything; we're talking about GPS transponders, which is a specific concept we can actually get our heads around. So let's try!

cobrausn 15y ago
Should they be able to plant a gps tracker on your clothing without a warrant? After all, they could get the same information by just following you. This is just easier. Why would it be any different than your car? It's not actually on your person, per se, it's on your clothing, which is different. Sure, the resolution of the determined movement is higher, but they could have an agent tail you to the same effect if you left your car. The line we draw in the sand is somewhat arbitrary, but it has to be there. I'm generally for putting the line further up the slippery slope.
- tptacek 15y ago
  No, attaching anything to my clothing is extraordinarily intrusive, and the police do not in fact have the ability to monitor my every movement, unlike with my vehicle, where virtually all lawful movement is already subject to monitoring. I don't think this is an arbitrary or subtle difference; I think it's night and day. I specifically think that warrantless monitoring of vehicles is reasonable.