4 ms·

I would have to disagree, the main issue with FISA is not only that allows the US Government to do warrantless wiretapping, it forces citizens who are business

I would have to disagree, the main issue with FISA is not only that allows the US Government to do warrantless wiretapping, it forces citizens who are business owners to facilitate that wire-tapping (which is already legal but only for a small subsection of types of businesses like telephone and internet companies) and FISA expands on the definition of these kinds of businesses without openly defining what that expansion is, the FBI can just make that determination without any due process, foresight, or reasoning. This is hugely detrimental to all Americans. They could go to any business and force them to wiretap their wifi or turn over ALL user records. The fact that there is no transparency at any level and that they are quietly pushing this through is damning. If they want to expand the definition of what FISA allows, they should do so in the open. The Majority Report had an expert on to talk about it, you can google it, its the first link under "majority report FISA"

nickff 2y ago
I don’t like the government forcing business owners to assist in controlling the populace either, but this is hardly a unique situation. The best example I can think of is requiring employers to pay deduct employees’ income tax. Should we stop requiring employers to deduct income tax? For the record, I think the answer to both is yes, but I’m in the minority.
- notaustinpowers 2y ago
  FISA allows these governmental agencies to force/compel businesses to share this information without users being notified of it. Requiring employers to deduct employee's pay for income taxes notifies the employee in question before it is done. The notice is the important bit here.
  - nickff 2y ago
    People are constantly bombarded with notices, to the point that most of us actually read very few of them. I'm not sure the notice makes a big difference here; what proportion of taxpayers do you think actually know their total tax liability and/or effective tax rate at the federal, state, and/or local levels? We have notice of all of them, but it's so hard to keep track of income, investment, sales, and property taxes, that very few of us actually know this stuff. I bet that if you put a notice of FISA data collection on someone's pay stub, it's unlikely they would even notice.
- candiddevmike 2y ago
  It would be interesting to stop all employer collected things (including/especially health insurance) and have folks pay directly for them. Unless you read your paystubs, you don't realize how much this stuff costs you.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Deducting taxes is not an opaque issue though. It is known to everyone at time of employment with the filling out of the W-2. When the TLAs come knocking on a business' door to provide information, the employee(s) in question are not asked to fill out another form. Equating the two is just a sad attempt at white washing
- repelsteeltje 2y ago
  The analogy differs in the extent to which the populace may reasonably assume a level of privacy. The relation between employer and employee is usually less anonymous than that between a tech platform and some random visitor.
tonetegeatinst 2y ago
One could argue this is just like how the ATF arbitrary can interpret the law and changes what's consider legal or not. Their is not method the truly balances any position where you can constantly change the definition of words and ths interpretation of the law.
- jonhohle 2y ago
  In court the ATF is learning that they cannot arbitrarily change their interpretations and may have less authority than when they started due to how arbitrary they’ve decided to be recently. That doesn’t help the poor folks who followed the old rules and are now ensured in the executive branch illegally pulling the rug out from under them, but it seems like the ATF is routinely losing when brought to trial. While the current admin seems to love changing the meaning of words to suit their whims, I think, in general, the courts have pretty consistently sided with the intended meaning at the time of legislation (text and tradition) rather than the politically motivated meaning that’s been conjured up in the last 36-months (novel legal theory garbage).
  - int_19h 2y ago
    The new trick they are using is to simply drop the case whenever they feel that the ruling is not going to be in their favor. Which lets them keep the rule on the books and continue using it in the future. Basically the onus becomes on the person prosecuted & their lawyer to bring it up every time. And the problem with that is that by the time you get to the point where case is dismissed, it is already a major disruption to one's life. The legal fees alone can be effectively punitive for many people to begin with, and then if you actually get arrested and detained, it's straight up financial ruin. Not to mention reputational damage stemming from stuff like this even if the case is eventually dropped.

nickff 2y ago

I don’t like the government forcing business owners to assist in controlling the populace either, but this is hardly a unique situation. The best example I can think of is requiring employers to pay deduct employees’ income tax. Should we stop requiring employers to deduct income tax? For the record, I think the answer to both is yes, but I’m in the minority.

notaustinpowers 2y ago
FISA allows these governmental agencies to force/compel businesses to share this information without users being notified of it. Requiring employers to deduct employee's pay for income taxes notifies the employee in question before it is done. The notice is the important bit here.
- nickff 2y ago
  People are constantly bombarded with notices, to the point that most of us actually read very few of them. I'm not sure the notice makes a big difference here; what proportion of taxpayers do you think actually know their total tax liability and/or effective tax rate at the federal, state, and/or local levels? We have notice of all of them, but it's so hard to keep track of income, investment, sales, and property taxes, that very few of us actually know this stuff. I bet that if you put a notice of FISA data collection on someone's pay stub, it's unlikely they would even notice.
candiddevmike 2y ago
It would be interesting to stop all employer collected things (including/especially health insurance) and have folks pay directly for them. Unless you read your paystubs, you don't realize how much this stuff costs you.
dylan604 2y ago
Deducting taxes is not an opaque issue though. It is known to everyone at time of employment with the filling out of the W-2. When the TLAs come knocking on a business' door to provide information, the employee(s) in question are not asked to fill out another form. Equating the two is just a sad attempt at white washing
repelsteeltje 2y ago
The analogy differs in the extent to which the populace may reasonably assume a level of privacy. The relation between employer and employee is usually less anonymous than that between a tech platform and some random visitor.

tonetegeatinst 2y ago

One could argue this is just like how the ATF arbitrary can interpret the law and changes what's consider legal or not. Their is not method the truly balances any position where you can constantly change the definition of words and ths interpretation of the law.

jonhohle 2y ago
In court the ATF is learning that they cannot arbitrarily change their interpretations and may have less authority than when they started due to how arbitrary they’ve decided to be recently. That doesn’t help the poor folks who followed the old rules and are now ensured in the executive branch illegally pulling the rug out from under them, but it seems like the ATF is routinely losing when brought to trial. While the current admin seems to love changing the meaning of words to suit their whims, I think, in general, the courts have pretty consistently sided with the intended meaning at the time of legislation (text and tradition) rather than the politically motivated meaning that’s been conjured up in the last 36-months (novel legal theory garbage).
- int_19h 2y ago
  The new trick they are using is to simply drop the case whenever they feel that the ruling is not going to be in their favor. Which lets them keep the rule on the books and continue using it in the future. Basically the onus becomes on the person prosecuted & their lawyer to bring it up every time. And the problem with that is that by the time you get to the point where case is dismissed, it is already a major disruption to one's life. The legal fees alone can be effectively punitive for many people to begin with, and then if you actually get arrested and detained, it's straight up financial ruin. Not to mention reputational damage stemming from stuff like this even if the case is eventually dropped.