5 ms·

"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 W

"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."

pvnick 13y ago
Exactly. This is THE law in America. Not some crap that the congress du jour baked up
timr 13y ago
PRISM, as described, is a warrant-based program. But you're right...we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a proper angry mob.
- spikels 13y ago
  I love all the doublespeak around this issue but "warrant-based" is a new one. I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it? You need a lawyer to translate anything our leaders (biz, gov or other) say. It's all form with very little substance. If you thought you heard something definitive you almost certainly misunderstood.
  - timr 13y ago
    "I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it?" Nobody (here) knows. This conversation is more heat than light in part because people are spouting all sorts of uninformed nonsense just to perpetuate their theatrical sense of outrage. What I've read so far suggests that there's some sort of FISA-related oversight of the "reports" generated by PRISM. It sounds like analysts can do queries based on certain rules that are designed to include only conversations with foreign participants, but to get detailed information they need to go through a FISA court. Honestly, though...you can't tell much of anything from the documents that have been leaked. Most of the details you see people discussing here are speculation, or worse.
    - ixnu 13y ago
      Did Spitzer or Petraeus have conversations with foreign participants?
    - spikels 13y ago
      I know for a fact is does not. Even with the traditional criminal warrant (say a mafia boss) they only need a warrant for ONE person on the call.
- eightyone 13y ago
  Take a look at this comment of mine. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5850851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5850851
- staunch 13y ago
  A warrant that applies to everyone, and is not based on probable cause, quite clearly violates the Fourth Amendment.
- mtgx 13y ago
  A warrant that says "allow us to get all the data on everyone in the country, with no specific targets". That's not much of a warrant that respects the 4th amendment.
  - timr 13y ago
    "A warrant that says 'allow us to get all the data on everyone in the country, with no specific targets'." So far, no evidence has been produced to support your assertion. In fact, all evidence in the leaked documents, official statements, etc. suggest the exact opposite: warrants are served that allow investigators to make specific searches, with oversight processes to try to reduce the number of US citizens' data included in the search. In other words: prove your claim. Cite something other than a Reddit or HN comment from a tinfoil hat-fitting specialist.
    - staunch 13y ago
      Obama has publicly acknowledged that phone records are being collected en masse. In his own words: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
      - timr 13y ago
        That's a different program, and the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality of collecting the "metadata" that it's gathering, without a warrant. It's far less controversial than the PRISM program, which is what is being discussed here.
        losvedir 13y ago
        > It's far less controversial than the PRISM program, which is what is being discussed here. Is it, though? The widespread Verizon metadata gathering is what I'm most concerned with right now. It, too, was whistleblown by Snowden. > the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality I understand this program to be ruled unconstitutional by the Foreign International Surveillance Court, albeit with the findings suppressed by the justice department for "national security" reasons. I thought this was the stuff Senators Wyden and Udall were briefed on and aghast about, but unable to explain to the American people. Do you understand this differently?
btilly 13y ago
Playing Devil's advocate here. The government position is that it isn't a search until they subject the data to analysis. Nor is it a seizure when you still have your data. Thus they draw a line between collecting data (making sure they have it) and actually searching it. Therefore broad data collection does not violate the 4th so long as they always get specific warrants before actually searching that data.
- ahallock 13y ago
  But how do we know that? There is no accountability. They do everything under secrecy. It might be different if we had a third-party, non-governmental agency verifying that they are not violating the 4th amendment. Why have no accountability and no transparency if they were not going to violate our privacy? I'm flipping the "If you have nothing to hide" bit on them. But even if there were oversight, the main issue is the potential for abuse. Having all that data in the hands of an entity that can imprison you is a pretty frightening idea. Sure, maybe they're following the rules now, but in desperate times, people can behave immorally and radically. Do not trust other human beings, even if they are under the umbrella of "government". Look at what evil humans have done in the last century alone and you'll agree that we should limit the potential for abuse as much as possible.
  - btilly 13y ago
    The government's position is that both Congress and the courts provide accountability here, and the reason for not being transparent is that they do not want the people who are being monitored to be aware of exactly what capabilities the USA does and does not have. The rest of your argument is about reality as civil libertarians see it, and not how the government sees it. (Because, after all, they think that the briefing that Congress gets and the oversight of the FISA court is sufficient protection.)
anigbrowl 13y ago
Looking at telephone records is not a search under teh 4th amendment. See Smith v. Maryland. It's the Supreme Court that makes these determinations, and quoting the constitution without regard to how the SC has interpreted only shows that you haven't read article III properly.
dm2 13y ago
That is a strong argument but I'd like to play devils advocate for a second. First, "unreasonable" is a key word. Is the copying of data without any noticeable inconvenience to the citizen considered unreasonable? Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping. Second, the Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago. During that time PHYSICAL searches and property seizures were the primary concern. Nobody could even fathom the concept of the Internet or the role it would play in today's society.
- freeman478 13y ago
  > Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping. This reminds me of the copyright talks but obviously when it's citizens doing it, copying is stealing but when it's NSA, copying is not an issue because it does not remove anything ...

pvnick 13y ago

Exactly. This is THE law in America. Not some crap that the congress du jour baked up

timr 13y ago

PRISM, as described, is a warrant-based program. But you're right...we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a proper angry mob.

spikels 13y ago
I love all the doublespeak around this issue but "warrant-based" is a new one. I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it? You need a lawyer to translate anything our leaders (biz, gov or other) say. It's all form with very little substance. If you thought you heard something definitive you almost certainly misunderstood.
- timr 13y ago
  "I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it?" Nobody (here) knows. This conversation is more heat than light in part because people are spouting all sorts of uninformed nonsense just to perpetuate their theatrical sense of outrage. What I've read so far suggests that there's some sort of FISA-related oversight of the "reports" generated by PRISM. It sounds like analysts can do queries based on certain rules that are designed to include only conversations with foreign participants, but to get detailed information they need to go through a FISA court. Honestly, though...you can't tell much of anything from the documents that have been leaked. Most of the details you see people discussing here are speculation, or worse.
  - ixnu 13y ago
    Did Spitzer or Petraeus have conversations with foreign participants?
  - spikels 13y ago
    I know for a fact is does not. Even with the traditional criminal warrant (say a mafia boss) they only need a warrant for ONE person on the call.
eightyone 13y ago
Take a look at this comment of mine. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5850851 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5850851
staunch 13y ago
A warrant that applies to everyone, and is not based on probable cause, quite clearly violates the Fourth Amendment.
mtgx 13y ago
A warrant that says "allow us to get all the data on everyone in the country, with no specific targets". That's not much of a warrant that respects the 4th amendment.
- timr 13y ago
  "A warrant that says 'allow us to get all the data on everyone in the country, with no specific targets'." So far, no evidence has been produced to support your assertion. In fact, all evidence in the leaked documents, official statements, etc. suggest the exact opposite: warrants are served that allow investigators to make specific searches, with oversight processes to try to reduce the number of US citizens' data included in the search. In other words: prove your claim. Cite something other than a Reddit or HN comment from a tinfoil hat-fitting specialist.
  - staunch 13y ago
    Obama has publicly acknowledged that phone records are being collected en masse. In his own words: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba...
    - timr 13y ago
      That's a different program, and the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality of collecting the "metadata" that it's gathering, without a warrant. It's far less controversial than the PRISM program, which is what is being discussed here.
      - losvedir 13y ago
        > It's far less controversial than the PRISM program, which is what is being discussed here. Is it, though? The widespread Verizon metadata gathering is what I'm most concerned with right now. It, too, was whistleblown by Snowden. > the US Supreme Court has already ruled on the legality I understand this program to be ruled unconstitutional by the Foreign International Surveillance Court, albeit with the findings suppressed by the justice department for "national security" reasons. I thought this was the stuff Senators Wyden and Udall were briefed on and aghast about, but unable to explain to the American people. Do you understand this differently?

btilly 13y ago

Playing Devil's advocate here. The government position is that it isn't a search until they subject the data to analysis. Nor is it a seizure when you still have your data. Thus they draw a line between collecting data (making sure they have it) and actually searching it. Therefore broad data collection does not violate the 4th so long as they always get specific warrants before actually searching that data.

ahallock 13y ago
But how do we know that? There is no accountability. They do everything under secrecy. It might be different if we had a third-party, non-governmental agency verifying that they are not violating the 4th amendment. Why have no accountability and no transparency if they were not going to violate our privacy? I'm flipping the "If you have nothing to hide" bit on them. But even if there were oversight, the main issue is the potential for abuse. Having all that data in the hands of an entity that can imprison you is a pretty frightening idea. Sure, maybe they're following the rules now, but in desperate times, people can behave immorally and radically. Do not trust other human beings, even if they are under the umbrella of "government". Look at what evil humans have done in the last century alone and you'll agree that we should limit the potential for abuse as much as possible.
- btilly 13y ago
  The government's position is that both Congress and the courts provide accountability here, and the reason for not being transparent is that they do not want the people who are being monitored to be aware of exactly what capabilities the USA does and does not have. The rest of your argument is about reality as civil libertarians see it, and not how the government sees it. (Because, after all, they think that the briefing that Congress gets and the oversight of the FISA court is sufficient protection.)

anigbrowl 13y ago

Looking at telephone records is not a search under teh 4th amendment. See Smith v. Maryland. It's the Supreme Court that makes these determinations, and quoting the constitution without regard to how the SC has interpreted only shows that you haven't read article III properly.

dm2 13y ago

That is a strong argument but I'd like to play devils advocate for a second. First, "unreasonable" is a key word. Is the copying of data without any noticeable inconvenience to the citizen considered unreasonable? Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping. Second, the Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago. During that time PHYSICAL searches and property seizures were the primary concern. Nobody could even fathom the concept of the Internet or the role it would play in today's society.

freeman478 13y ago
> Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping. This reminds me of the copyright talks but obviously when it's citizens doing it, copying is stealing but when it's NSA, copying is not an issue because it does not remove anything ...