3 ms·

I made an obtuse reply to an obtuse wrong assertion. You then baselessly claimed I didn't know about different branches of government. That second bit is what t

I made an obtuse reply to an obtuse wrong assertion. You then baselessly claimed I didn't know about different branches of government. That second bit is what tends to crater conversations. The distinction of the judiciary is most certainly relevant to the actual legal analysis here - the judiciary often reserves sweeping authoritarian powers for themselves, even when they do act to restrain the legislative/executive. So without even really analyzing the details, I am pretty sure that the law as written supports this action. But the comment I was responding to wasn't making a larger more nuanced argument - rather it said that the government was not involved, defining away the actions of the judiciary as somehow not being governmental action, regardless of them being done with the authority of government. The overall analysis is that if people are up in arms about this, it just reinforces the need for some actual privacy laws in this country - both to protect from corporations themselves abusing our data, and in this case to prevent the government from creating overly broad judicial orders that may only target specific companies but end up running roughshod over many individuals' rights. (and just to be clear to avoid going off into the terminology weeds again: the definition of rights I'm using is the one of imagined natural rights, not merely what has been codified into law)

freejazz 1y ago
So what? The poster was obviously referring to the executive so pretending like there was any ambiguity was ridiculous
- mindslight 1y ago
  It's either ambiguous or a logical fallacy - the original concern is about government overreach in general, so it cannot be dismissed by focusing on the executive when it's obviously not the executive acting. The commenter I responded to is an attorney who presumably just tried to cut out having to detail a longer argument based on the actual nuances that have been interpreted from the 4th amendment. Still, the argument bit off too much so in the interest of deeper analysis and rational discussion it seemed worth calling out.
  - freejazz 1y ago
    It's a legal dispute. The role the "government" plays in a legal dispute is very clear. You're being obnoxiously pedantic.
    - mindslight 1y ago
      The topic's entire complaint is of people not liking a government action, arrived at by government policy. You made a comment that the "government is not involved". Reading your other comments in this thread, it seems as if your point is to brush aside people's concerns as if they are nonsensical. But that simplistic statement is obviously false, because we are talking about a government order. My comments only seem pedantic because I've had to tediously spell out the details in response to your argumentative wriggling instead of you just accepting that your simplistic statement was wrong.
      - freejazz 1y ago
        If you want to pretend to not understand the difference between the different branches of gov't that's fine. I'm sure there is a childrens' playground where you can have a similar level of nuanced discussion, as to your liking. > government order They aren't called "government orders" they are called "court orders". Give me a break with this nonsense alreayd.
        mindslight 1y ago
        Do you have a constructive point you would like to make with this distinction? You keep coming back to this, making it a point to insult me, but then don't really go anywhere with it. This is Hacker News - we readily jump between levels of abstraction. I've acknowledged that the executive and judicial are separate branches are government, but my argument zooms out a level and treats them as both part of the larger government. Because when people feel their right to privacy is being violated by the government, it doesn't really depend on which branch is causing it! It seems to me you want to hold to the distinction between the two so perhaps you can paint the action under discussion as if it's the result of something that could not just be changed? But obviously this capability of the judiciary could be restrained by Congress, the same as actions by the executive.

freejazz 1y ago

So what? The poster was obviously referring to the executive so pretending like there was any ambiguity was ridiculous

mindslight 1y ago
It's either ambiguous or a logical fallacy - the original concern is about government overreach in general, so it cannot be dismissed by focusing on the executive when it's obviously not the executive acting. The commenter I responded to is an attorney who presumably just tried to cut out having to detail a longer argument based on the actual nuances that have been interpreted from the 4th amendment. Still, the argument bit off too much so in the interest of deeper analysis and rational discussion it seemed worth calling out.
- freejazz 1y ago
  It's a legal dispute. The role the "government" plays in a legal dispute is very clear. You're being obnoxiously pedantic.
  - mindslight 1y ago
    The topic's entire complaint is of people not liking a government action, arrived at by government policy. You made a comment that the "government is not involved". Reading your other comments in this thread, it seems as if your point is to brush aside people's concerns as if they are nonsensical. But that simplistic statement is obviously false, because we are talking about a government order. My comments only seem pedantic because I've had to tediously spell out the details in response to your argumentative wriggling instead of you just accepting that your simplistic statement was wrong.
    - freejazz 1y ago
      If you want to pretend to not understand the difference between the different branches of gov't that's fine. I'm sure there is a childrens' playground where you can have a similar level of nuanced discussion, as to your liking. > government order They aren't called "government orders" they are called "court orders". Give me a break with this nonsense alreayd.
      - mindslight 1y ago
        Do you have a constructive point you would like to make with this distinction? You keep coming back to this, making it a point to insult me, but then don't really go anywhere with it. This is Hacker News - we readily jump between levels of abstraction. I've acknowledged that the executive and judicial are separate branches are government, but my argument zooms out a level and treats them as both part of the larger government. Because when people feel their right to privacy is being violated by the government, it doesn't really depend on which branch is causing it! It seems to me you want to hold to the distinction between the two so perhaps you can paint the action under discussion as if it's the result of something that could not just be changed? But obviously this capability of the judiciary could be restrained by Congress, the same as actions by the executive.