6 ms·

Yep, that's the exact "loophole" I mentioned in my original comment! The government can now partner with private businesses to effectively bypass the Fourth Am

by calibas 8mo ago

Yep, that's the exact "loophole" I mentioned in my original comment! The government can now partner with private businesses to effectively bypass the Fourth Amendment.

otterley 8mo ago
Yes, that is true. But that is not a violation, which was in the first clause of your original claim. It's an end-run. If it were a violation, Courts could enjoin it. But since it's not a violation, there's nothing to enjoin.
- calibas 8mo ago
  If it's not clear already, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not using strict legal definitions.
- Loughla 8mo ago
  Congratulations. By needling and carving at semantics, you win the argument! Two more Internet points for you! It's almost like HN isn't a court and the OP was expressing their opinion that this should be illegal. . . Not relying on specific semantics for the current state of affairs?
  - otterley 8mo ago
    To say that something is a belief or should be and to say that something is a fact are two different things. When you say the latter, you are putting yourself at a significantly greater risk of being incorrect. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know this. And I’d expect someone with your background to know this better than most! HN is a forum of written communications. Clarity and accuracy are essential skills for participating effectively in such places, and are the responsibility of the author.
    - alt227 8mo ago
      This is an internet forum, not a court of law.
      - otterley 8mo ago
        And therefore what, exactly? When you distill the two down to their essence, they’re similar in that they’re groups of people making written arguments against each other. (And, frequently, complaining about mistreatment.) Are you trying to argue that people shouldn’t be taken at their word? Or that we shouldn’t challenge people who make unqualified legal assertions? I’m not sure what your point is.
        wredcoll 8mo ago
        People here are making arguments about what should be. Either as interpretations or created laws. We all know that the actual interpretation is up to 5 republicans on the supreme court and whatever they feel on a given day will increase their side's power/ideology. No one is going to be making arguments about that because there's no point, you can't logic someone out of a position that they didn't use logic to get to in the first place. So again, when someone on a forum says "this is wrong and something should be done about it" replying that it might technically be legal at this moment in time is incredibly useless. It's completely missing the point.
        otterley 8mo ago
        > when someone on a forum says "this is wrong and something should be done about it" If that had been what was said, we wouldn’t even be here.
        wredcoll 8mo ago
        Perhaps we can work on what is called "media literacy" where we understand text based on its context and authorship and other such clues.
        8mo ago
  - oldcigarette 8mo ago
    it is times like these i am reminded of https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
    - Loughla 8mo ago
      That was actually my first thought. The focus on this part of the thread has left the actual meat of the article entirely and is focused instead on a post trying to weedle meaning where there is none.
      - otterley 8mo ago
        You caught me, boys! I’d better go tell my boss I failed because these kids are too smart to be fooled.
- y-c-o-m-b 8mo ago
  You had me up until now. Turns out your whole point is arguing semantics? You're arguing just to argue and not providing anything of substance on this point. As another person said, this isn't a court.
  - otterley 8mo ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026226
  - DenisM 8mo ago
    If X is against law Y the recourse is to seek judgment from courts. If it’s not against the law the recourse is to seek new law from Congress. The difference is significant for that reason alone. The other reason is that if you’re looking to recruit supporters you will get more of them if you get your ducks in a row. Disorganized ducks impair credibility and create friction. Not making the distinction between the two is only helpful for the purpose of blowing off steam and the only outcome is outrage fatigue.
  - delfinom 8mo ago
    Unfortunately, all lawyers and courts do is argue semantics. Which is why it's a misnomer to call the legal system a justice system in criminal cases. Lol.

by calibas 8mo ago

Yep, that's the exact "loophole" I mentioned in my original comment! The government can now partner with private businesses to effectively bypass the Fourth Amendment.

otterley 8mo ago

Yes, that is true. But that is not a violation, which was in the first clause of your original claim. It's an end-run. If it were a violation, Courts could enjoin it. But since it's not a violation, there's nothing to enjoin.

calibas 8mo ago
If it's not clear already, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not using strict legal definitions.
Loughla 8mo ago
Congratulations. By needling and carving at semantics, you win the argument! Two more Internet points for you! It's almost like HN isn't a court and the OP was expressing their opinion that this should be illegal. . . Not relying on specific semantics for the current state of affairs?
- otterley 8mo ago
  To say that something is a belief or should be and to say that something is a fact are two different things. When you say the latter, you are putting yourself at a significantly greater risk of being incorrect. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know this. And I’d expect someone with your background to know this better than most! HN is a forum of written communications. Clarity and accuracy are essential skills for participating effectively in such places, and are the responsibility of the author.
  - alt227 8mo ago
    This is an internet forum, not a court of law.
    - otterley 8mo ago
      And therefore what, exactly? When you distill the two down to their essence, they’re similar in that they’re groups of people making written arguments against each other. (And, frequently, complaining about mistreatment.) Are you trying to argue that people shouldn’t be taken at their word? Or that we shouldn’t challenge people who make unqualified legal assertions? I’m not sure what your point is.
      - wredcoll 8mo ago
        People here are making arguments about what should be. Either as interpretations or created laws. We all know that the actual interpretation is up to 5 republicans on the supreme court and whatever they feel on a given day will increase their side's power/ideology. No one is going to be making arguments about that because there's no point, you can't logic someone out of a position that they didn't use logic to get to in the first place. So again, when someone on a forum says "this is wrong and something should be done about it" replying that it might technically be legal at this moment in time is incredibly useless. It's completely missing the point.
        otterley 8mo ago
        > when someone on a forum says "this is wrong and something should be done about it" If that had been what was said, we wouldn’t even be here.
        wredcoll 8mo ago
        Perhaps we can work on what is called "media literacy" where we understand text based on its context and authorship and other such clues.
        8mo ago
- oldcigarette 8mo ago
  it is times like these i am reminded of https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm
  - Loughla 8mo ago
    That was actually my first thought. The focus on this part of the thread has left the actual meat of the article entirely and is focused instead on a post trying to weedle meaning where there is none.
    - otterley 8mo ago
      You caught me, boys! I’d better go tell my boss I failed because these kids are too smart to be fooled.
y-c-o-m-b 8mo ago
You had me up until now. Turns out your whole point is arguing semantics? You're arguing just to argue and not providing anything of substance on this point. As another person said, this isn't a court.
- otterley 8mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026226 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47026226
- DenisM 8mo ago
  If X is against law Y the recourse is to seek judgment from courts. If it’s not against the law the recourse is to seek new law from Congress. The difference is significant for that reason alone. The other reason is that if you’re looking to recruit supporters you will get more of them if you get your ducks in a row. Disorganized ducks impair credibility and create friction. Not making the distinction between the two is only helpful for the purpose of blowing off steam and the only outcome is outrage fatigue.
- delfinom 8mo ago
  Unfortunately, all lawyers and courts do is argue semantics. Which is why it's a misnomer to call the legal system a justice system in criminal cases. Lol.