5 ms·

Why is it even legal to be able to force (almost) everyone to be a spy?

by generic92034 3y ago

chx 3y ago
[flagged]
- antiloper 3y ago
  What does trump have to do with this? (rhetorical question)
  - dapf 3y ago
    [dead]
  - blooalien 3y ago
    I believe that "Trump-stuffed SCOTUS" is referring to the current Supreme Court leaning hard in "conservative" (Republican) political directions / making decisions Trump would probably approve of.
    - datascienced 3y ago
      But TFA is about legislation?
      - blooalien 3y ago
        They're likely thinking that if someone were to argue against such legislation, they could take it all the way to the supreme court only to be disappointed in the final decision? Thinking they'd end up deciding that this sort of legislation is indeed "necessary and proper"? That's just how I read it, though. They could mean something entirely different for all I know. ;)
    - yonaguska 3y ago
      which is odd, because the justice most recently supporting the infringement of individual freedoms was Ketanji Brown, arguing on behalf of the government that there should be more limitations on the 1st amendment.
      - o-90 3y ago
        Where/in what case was this argument made?
        yonaguska 3y ago
        The case brought by Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden admin concerning government collusion with big tech to censor misinformation during covid. She used the phrase, the first amendment "hamstrings" the government during emergencies. I couldn't find a clip on YouTube that's not padded with commentary, unfortunately. But it is troubling...as a supreme Court justice, one of your priorities is protecting the citizens from the government via the constitution, not the other way around.
        o-90 3y ago
        You're talking about Murthy vs. Missouri (23-411). Justice Jackson poses a hypothetical on page 94 about "a new teen challenge that involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations" and then asks respondents' council if "is it your view that the government authorities could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?" There are several back and forths on the following pages where respondents respond to the hypothetical and follow up questions are asked. Then Justice Jackson re-broaches the topic on page 116 and continues: "So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would -- what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I'm really -- I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems." His response continues to page 119. Someone is cherry-picking quotes and serving them to you so you will think "liberal Justices are against the first Amendment." https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-411_o759.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
justatdotin 3y ago
it's not, and they can't. the NSA do not have the power to force me to do anything.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > the NSA do not have the power to force me to do anything. Officially. /s
  - fransje26 3y ago
    Until they pull out the wrench, that is. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- generic92034 3y ago
  If you happen to have access to any relevant infrastructure or item (like the phone of someone else) the new version will change that. You no longer need to be an employee of an ISP or something like this.
  - master-lincoln 3y ago
    Only if you are in the USA or a citizen.
    - justatdotin 3y ago
      bingo :)
- micromacrofoot 3y ago
  they don't need to force you, just your boss or your coworker
- Jerrrry 3y ago
  unless you were already working for free, then yes, they can.

Why is it even legal to be able to force (almost) everyone to be a spy?

chx 3y ago

[flagged]

antiloper 3y ago
What does trump have to do with this? (rhetorical question)
- dapf 3y ago
  [dead]
- blooalien 3y ago
  I believe that "Trump-stuffed SCOTUS" is referring to the current Supreme Court leaning hard in "conservative" (Republican) political directions / making decisions Trump would probably approve of.
  - datascienced 3y ago
    But TFA is about legislation?
    - blooalien 3y ago
      They're likely thinking that if someone were to argue against such legislation, they could take it all the way to the supreme court only to be disappointed in the final decision? Thinking they'd end up deciding that this sort of legislation is indeed "necessary and proper"? That's just how I read it, though. They could mean something entirely different for all I know. ;)
  - yonaguska 3y ago
    which is odd, because the justice most recently supporting the infringement of individual freedoms was Ketanji Brown, arguing on behalf of the government that there should be more limitations on the 1st amendment.
    - o-90 3y ago
      Where/in what case was this argument made?
      - yonaguska 3y ago
        The case brought by Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden admin concerning government collusion with big tech to censor misinformation during covid. She used the phrase, the first amendment "hamstrings" the government during emergencies. I couldn't find a clip on YouTube that's not padded with commentary, unfortunately. But it is troubling...as a supreme Court justice, one of your priorities is protecting the citizens from the government via the constitution, not the other way around.
        o-90 3y ago
        You're talking about Murthy vs. Missouri (23-411). Justice Jackson poses a hypothetical on page 94 about "a new teen challenge that involved teens jumping out of windows at increasing elevations" and then asks respondents' council if "is it your view that the government authorities could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?" There are several back and forths on the following pages where respondents respond to the hypothetical and follow up questions are asked. Then Justice Jackson re-broaches the topic on page 116 and continues: "So my biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in significant ways in the most important time periods. I mean, what would -- what would you have the government do? I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech. But, in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done. And so I guess some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information. So can you help me? Because I'm really -- I'm really worried about that because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems." His response continues to page 119. Someone is cherry-picking quotes and serving them to you so you will think "liberal Justices are against the first Amendment." https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-411_o759.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcr...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

justatdotin 3y ago

it's not, and they can't. the NSA do not have the power to force me to do anything.

hulitu 3y ago
> the NSA do not have the power to force me to do anything. Officially. /s
- fransje26 3y ago
  Until they pull out the wrench, that is. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
generic92034 3y ago
If you happen to have access to any relevant infrastructure or item (like the phone of someone else) the new version will change that. You no longer need to be an employee of an ISP or something like this.
- master-lincoln 3y ago
  Only if you are in the USA or a citizen.
  - justatdotin 3y ago
    bingo :)
micromacrofoot 3y ago
they don't need to force you, just your boss or your coworker
Jerrrry 3y ago
unless you were already working for free, then yes, they can.