5 ms·

They each had a duty to pardon Snowden, as he showed the American public incontrovertible evidence that the US Government is violating the Constitution by spyin

They each had a duty to pardon Snowden, as he showed the American public incontrovertible evidence that the US Government is violating the Constitution by spying on Americans.

hsnewman 4y ago
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  You might want to actually read the constitution before you spout off non-sense. >The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  - z3c0 4y ago
    This is still an area of controversy, and the text you've highlighted explains exactly why: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Most of our digital information is not gathered from places protected by the 4th Amendment - you sent that data to somebody else. Albeit unwittingly, but that's legally your fault, per the ToS. Scalia, despite being a polarizing figure, was a staunch defender of the 4th Amendment, and even he admitted that this was a grey area[1]. This is because he was an originalist, and this scenario never could have been imagined by the forefathers. So there's no real "original intent" to look towards, which is very important to the Supreme Court in their rulings. That said, I believe Snowden did the right thing, as this still highlights a gaping hole in our rights, and anyone who denotes him a traitor for it is bordering being one themselves. [1]: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/asked_about_nsa_stuff_scalia_says_conversations_arent_protected_by_fourth_a https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/asked_about_nsa_stuf... Edit: I'll add that the CIA leaks are more troubling, if you'd like to see some true violations of 4th amendment rights. IANASupremeCourtJustice, but I think bugging a smart TV would qualify here.
    - hitpointdrew 4y ago
      There is really nothing gray here. "in thier persons" and "in their houses" My computer, or phone, or whatever is in my house or on my person therefore it applies. "papers" Files/emails/etc. these days are just digital "papers", there for it applies to all digital communications. The spirit of the amendment is abundantly clear (despite Scalia's ignorance on this), and there is zero ambiguity. Anyone arguing that technically it doesn't apply to <insert technology that the writers could not possibly have fathomed here>, is someone who simply wants to subvert the constitution. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise on any sort of solid ground, the spirit is so crystal clear the writers couldn't not have done a better job.
      - z3c0 4y ago
        It seems that you've never realized that most of the stuff being gathered is not stored on any device that you have control over. Very weird to encounter on HN, but I guess you're part of today's 10,000... Maybe if you were running an SMTP server from your home would the 4th amendment apply in the way that you think it does. Most people have trusted another entity to house their "digital papers", so your beef should be with the organizations who hand it over to Feds without a fight. At least understand the nature of the problem before commenting so vehemently on it.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        Don't defend yourself if you ever end up in a legal conflict.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  Depends how you interpret the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- theandrewbailey 4y ago
  > Nothing in the constitution says anything about spying on citizens being illegal. Moreover, you have no right to privacy. Um, it does. The 4th amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Edit: and I don't think the Constitution or Amendments have anything to say about classified documents, nor national security. (After all, it was written at a time when there was fresh memories of a foreign army marching through America. There was no 'national security'.) I wouldn't be surprised if that whole bureaucracy gets ruled unconstitutional at some point.
- worstestes 4y ago
  We seem to have a constitutional scholar in our midst!
- malshe 4y ago
  Oh, we are talking about the US here. Not Russia or China.
- 25amxn25 4y ago
- fgt9398 4y ago
aerostable_slug 4y ago
He could have done that without exposing so much of, say, the Special Collection Service.
- z3c0 4y ago
  That's exactly who he should have been spotlighting. The Five Eyes is an egregious Orwellian contruct, and STATEROOM is integral to its continued existence.

They each had a duty to pardon Snowden, as he showed the American public incontrovertible evidence that the US Government is violating the Constitution by spying on Americans.

hsnewman 4y ago

hitpointdrew 4y ago
You might want to actually read the constitution before you spout off non-sense. >The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- z3c0 4y ago
  This is still an area of controversy, and the text you've highlighted explains exactly why: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Most of our digital information is not gathered from places protected by the 4th Amendment - you sent that data to somebody else. Albeit unwittingly, but that's legally your fault, per the ToS. Scalia, despite being a polarizing figure, was a staunch defender of the 4th Amendment, and even he admitted that this was a grey area[1]. This is because he was an originalist, and this scenario never could have been imagined by the forefathers. So there's no real "original intent" to look towards, which is very important to the Supreme Court in their rulings. That said, I believe Snowden did the right thing, as this still highlights a gaping hole in our rights, and anyone who denotes him a traitor for it is bordering being one themselves. [1]: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/asked_about_nsa_stuff_scalia_says_conversations_arent_protected_by_fourth_a https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/asked_about_nsa_stuf... Edit: I'll add that the CIA leaks are more troubling, if you'd like to see some true violations of 4th amendment rights. IANASupremeCourtJustice, but I think bugging a smart TV would qualify here.
  - hitpointdrew 4y ago
    There is really nothing gray here. "in thier persons" and "in their houses" My computer, or phone, or whatever is in my house or on my person therefore it applies. "papers" Files/emails/etc. these days are just digital "papers", there for it applies to all digital communications. The spirit of the amendment is abundantly clear (despite Scalia's ignorance on this), and there is zero ambiguity. Anyone arguing that technically it doesn't apply to <insert technology that the writers could not possibly have fathomed here>, is someone who simply wants to subvert the constitution. I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise on any sort of solid ground, the spirit is so crystal clear the writers couldn't not have done a better job.
    - z3c0 4y ago
      It seems that you've never realized that most of the stuff being gathered is not stored on any device that you have control over. Very weird to encounter on HN, but I guess you're part of today's 10,000... Maybe if you were running an SMTP server from your home would the 4th amendment apply in the way that you think it does. Most people have trusted another entity to house their "digital papers", so your beef should be with the organizations who hand it over to Feds without a fight. At least understand the nature of the problem before commenting so vehemently on it.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      Don't defend yourself if you ever end up in a legal conflict.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
Depends how you interpret the Fourth Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
theandrewbailey 4y ago
> Nothing in the constitution says anything about spying on citizens being illegal. Moreover, you have no right to privacy. Um, it does. The 4th amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Edit: and I don't think the Constitution or Amendments have anything to say about classified documents, nor national security. (After all, it was written at a time when there was fresh memories of a foreign army marching through America. There was no 'national security'.) I wouldn't be surprised if that whole bureaucracy gets ruled unconstitutional at some point.
worstestes 4y ago
We seem to have a constitutional scholar in our midst!
malshe 4y ago
Oh, we are talking about the US here. Not Russia or China.
25amxn25 4y ago
fgt9398 4y ago

aerostable_slug 4y ago

He could have done that without exposing so much of, say, the Special Collection Service.

z3c0 4y ago
That's exactly who he should have been spotlighting. The Five Eyes is an egregious Orwellian contruct, and STATEROOM is integral to its continued existence.