4 ms·

The point wasn't that you should take a congressman at his word that "everything is cool," but when what the issue is (THIS issue - no conflation please) an int

by skwirl 13y ago

The point wasn't that you should take a congressman at his word that "everything is cool," but when what the issue is (THIS issue - no conflation please) an interpretation of what that congressman said in the first place, then I think he has some authority in the matter so long as he isn't outright contradicting himself (but is in this case contradicting someone's interpretation).

lsiebert 13y ago
I think you make a fair point, and thank you for calling me on some implied BS. I don't necessarily believe he is lying. I am sorry if I conflated his statements. I also think that it's better to have such statements then not to have them, assuming they are true. However it seems apparent to me that his statement is intended to imply to the American public that the surveillance problem isn't problematic because it's legal. Something can be legal, and still be wrong. Sometimes laws need to change, or interpretations need to be challenged. When legal authorization isn't a meaningful restriction, when warrants aren't issued by a judge, or when judges rubberstamp even the broadest of warrants, that is problematic, in my opinion. The issue for me isn't the legality, but the appropriateness/morality of such surveillance. I would like to think that such programs are unconstitutional, but I don't think we have to limit our laws to the constitution... we can make laws that are more restrictive on what the American government can do then the constitution is interpreted to allow. Because if the constitution's 4th amendment protections allow the government to siphon this massive quantity of data, then it isn't restrictive enough. It also, for the record, isn't the number of incidents prevented by the current practices that justifies them, unless they can be meaningfully compared to incident prevention rates from more restrictive information gathering.

by skwirl 13y ago

lsiebert 13y ago

I think you make a fair point, and thank you for calling me on some implied BS. I don't necessarily believe he is lying. I am sorry if I conflated his statements. I also think that it's better to have such statements then not to have them, assuming they are true. However it seems apparent to me that his statement is intended to imply to the American public that the surveillance problem isn't problematic because it's legal. Something can be legal, and still be wrong. Sometimes laws need to change, or interpretations need to be challenged. When legal authorization isn't a meaningful restriction, when warrants aren't issued by a judge, or when judges rubberstamp even the broadest of warrants, that is problematic, in my opinion. The issue for me isn't the legality, but the appropriateness/morality of such surveillance. I would like to think that such programs are unconstitutional, but I don't think we have to limit our laws to the constitution... we can make laws that are more restrictive on what the American government can do then the constitution is interpreted to allow. Because if the constitution's 4th amendment protections allow the government to siphon this massive quantity of data, then it isn't restrictive enough. It also, for the record, isn't the number of incidents prevented by the current practices that justifies them, unless they can be meaningfully compared to incident prevention rates from more restrictive information gathering.