7 ms·

The Laws you can't see

157 points by ghosh 13y ago

burkemw3 13y ago
I like reading the mobile site on the desktop! The column is thin enough to be easily readable and there's no clutter!
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  It would be even nicer with parallel columns IMO.
jpdoctor 13y ago
Better title: The article you can't see. (Had to jigger the site to beat the paywall. What's the way to link through google again?) Edit: I had reached 10 articles. Easier solution is to just open a private browsing window.
schrodingersCat 13y ago
Does anyone else know if other countries have secret laws? It seems a bit like government by hypocrisy
- charonn0 13y ago
  If they knew, they couldn't tell you (being secret and all.)
  - pfortuny 13y ago
    The funniest thing is: however, ignorance of the law does not exempt from obeying it. :-)
- swombat 13y ago
  The country alluded to in Kafka's Trial had secret laws and secret one-sided courts and secret charges. Doesn't sound so far from reality now.
  - schrodingersCat 13y ago
    Great example of this in literature!
  - eumenides1 13y ago
    I think we need a new word. Kafkaean, because Kafkaesque to me implies "IS LIKE Kafka's nightmares" when I really want to describe it as "IS Kafka's nightmares". It's funny because when you were in high school and you thought the books you read wouldn't ever apply to life, but now that they do, the thoughts scare the crap outta me.
peterkelly 13y ago
"You’ve reached your limit of 10 complimentary articles this month" Oh, the irony
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jeff303 13y ago
  How exactly is it ironic?
  - peterkelly 13y ago
    The title of the article was "The laws you can't see". This is an article I couldn't see. At least until I switched over to a different browser, that is.
    - loopdoend 13y ago
      You mean intentionally exceeding your authorized access with intent to defraud? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
  - mitchty 13y ago
    Would seem to indicate to me that maybe its time to pay for a subscription if you're reading the site that much. But that's just me.
joering2 13y ago
> the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has for years been developing what is effectively a secret and unchallenged body of law on core Fourth Amendment issues, producing lengthy classified rulings based on the arguments of the federal government — the only party allowed in the courtroom It is sad indeed, but perhaps every political system sooner or later becomes a tyranny and dictatorship. It may be just a matter of time. If that's true then we live in the most amazing timeline of humans' evolution, and we should all appreciate it enormously.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- sendos 13y ago
  > > the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has for years been developing what is effectively a secret and unchallenged body of law on core Fourth Amendment issues, producing lengthy classified rulings based on the arguments of the federal government — the only party allowed in the courtroom It seems to me that we are doing a disservice to the terms 'law' and 'court' if we call a "secret and unchallenged body" of decisions 'law' and we call a place where the federal government is "the only party allowed in" a 'courtroom' Let's not give this travesty any more legitimacy than it deserves > It is sad indeed, but perhaps every political system sooner or later becomes a tyranny and dictatorship. It may be just a matter of time. Quite possibly.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > It is sad indeed, but perhaps every political system sooner or later becomes a tyranny and dictatorship. Uh, are we observing the same history here? The trend has distinctly been in the other direction. I'm less afraid of the NSA circa 2013, than Hoover's FBI from the middle of the 20th century, or McCarthy's Senate in the 1950's. The British's Parliament has governed Britain with tremendous continuity for about 325 years now, and it has on the whole only become more democratic over that time. The Soviet Union fell, East Germany fell. Brazil is ripe for democratic reform. Even China probably won't be able to stave off democracy forever at its current pace of development.
  - 13y ago
javajosh 13y ago
Reading this article it suddenly became clear: FISA is an Executive Branch agency that defends executive actions, much like the DoJ. In other words, it is the DoJ. When it (at least) comes to the 4th Amendment, the executive branch has manipulated Section 215 of the Patriot managed to totally unchain itself from the Constitution and do whatever it wants, in secret, from both the public and the other branches of government. The magnitude of this is stunning. Historically, the executive has unchained itself for brief periods for specific issues. I do not know of any attempt to unchain itself in perpetuity, and in secret. The fact that anyone finds it the least defensible is even more stunning. I mean, even if you are for mass surveillance (and there are many who legitimately feel that way) surely you must be concerned that it was done without your knowledge or consent. There are two paths to solving this problem, both of which result in striking down Section 215 of the Patriot Act: a court challenge (which the EFF is spear-heading) and an act of Congress (which is very unlikely given the lack of public awareness and uproar). Personally, I would like to see an additional censure on Obama and all other executive, legislative, and judicia officials who abrogated their duty to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. It needs to be our harshest censure, to send a message to future administrations that secret coups will not be tolerated.
- DanielBMarkham 13y ago
  You are correct. This is quite stunning. My reaction when thinking about what we've created is "awestruck" -- and I mean that in the initial meaning of the word. It's an amazingly giant cluster fuck. I don't see a way out, and I believe it's only a matter of time, perhaps only a few years, before the executive starts using this power for political gain. And then we are well and truly screwed. ADD: One counter-argument might be that the president can't use this for direct political gain because of all the other laws and structures we've put in place to prevent direct meddling. Believing that is true, which I don't, we're left with an even worse calamity: mid-level managers who will effectively have the power of kings while making 100K per year. As we've seen in many other mid-level management scandals, including the IRS, for the guy getting screwed it doesn't make much difference whether it's the president or some nameless bureaucrat being paid off by the mob who's doing it. Hurts just the same. Still just as bad. In fact, the president directly abusing this power is probably the best of all possible bad outcomes. Gives us one person to blame.
ChrisAntaki 13y ago
Laws we can't see need to be repealed.
DanielBMarkham 13y ago
"We don’t know what we’ll find. The surveillance court may be strictly adhering to the limits of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Or not. And that’s the problem: This court has morphed into an odd hybrid that seems to exist outside the justice system, even as its power grows in ways that we can’t see." Don't forget the argument from the other day, though. The Fourth Amendment specifically outlines the use of a "reasonableness" test. If it seems reasonable to the average man, it's probably okay. Without anybody knowing what's going on, however, there is no common man to check with to see if the government is acting in a reasonable way. Therefore for all intents and purposes there are no limits, aside from precedent, which is wonderfully flexible given the right semantic nudging.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

157 points by ghosh 13y ago

burkemw3 13y ago

I like reading the mobile site on the desktop! The column is thin enough to be easily readable and there's no clutter!

pbhjpbhj 13y ago
It would be even nicer with parallel columns IMO.

jpdoctor 13y ago

Better title: The article you can't see. (Had to jigger the site to beat the paywall. What's the way to link through google again?) Edit: I had reached 10 articles. Easier solution is to just open a private browsing window.

schrodingersCat 13y ago

Does anyone else know if other countries have secret laws? It seems a bit like government by hypocrisy

charonn0 13y ago
If they knew, they couldn't tell you (being secret and all.)
- pfortuny 13y ago
  The funniest thing is: however, ignorance of the law does not exempt from obeying it. :-)
swombat 13y ago
The country alluded to in Kafka's Trial had secret laws and secret one-sided courts and secret charges. Doesn't sound so far from reality now.
- schrodingersCat 13y ago
  Great example of this in literature!
- eumenides1 13y ago
  I think we need a new word. Kafkaean, because Kafkaesque to me implies "IS LIKE Kafka's nightmares" when I really want to describe it as "IS Kafka's nightmares". It's funny because when you were in high school and you thought the books you read wouldn't ever apply to life, but now that they do, the thoughts scare the crap outta me.

peterkelly 13y ago

"You’ve reached your limit of 10 complimentary articles this month" Oh, the irony

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jeff303 13y ago
How exactly is it ironic?
- peterkelly 13y ago
  The title of the article was "The laws you can't see". This is an article I couldn't see. At least until I switched over to a different browser, that is.
  - loopdoend 13y ago
    You mean intentionally exceeding your authorized access with intent to defraud? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030
- mitchty 13y ago
  Would seem to indicate to me that maybe its time to pay for a subscription if you're reading the site that much. But that's just me.

joering2 13y ago

> the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has for years been developing what is effectively a secret and unchallenged body of law on core Fourth Amendment issues, producing lengthy classified rulings based on the arguments of the federal government — the only party allowed in the courtroom It is sad indeed, but perhaps every political system sooner or later becomes a tyranny and dictatorship. It may be just a matter of time. If that's true then we live in the most amazing timeline of humans' evolution, and we should all appreciate it enormously.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
sendos 13y ago
> > the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has for years been developing what is effectively a secret and unchallenged body of law on core Fourth Amendment issues, producing lengthy classified rulings based on the arguments of the federal government — the only party allowed in the courtroom It seems to me that we are doing a disservice to the terms 'law' and 'court' if we call a "secret and unchallenged body" of decisions 'law' and we call a place where the federal government is "the only party allowed in" a 'courtroom' Let's not give this travesty any more legitimacy than it deserves > It is sad indeed, but perhaps every political system sooner or later becomes a tyranny and dictatorship. It may be just a matter of time. Quite possibly.
rayiner 13y ago
> It is sad indeed, but perhaps every political system sooner or later becomes a tyranny and dictatorship. Uh, are we observing the same history here? The trend has distinctly been in the other direction. I'm less afraid of the NSA circa 2013, than Hoover's FBI from the middle of the 20th century, or McCarthy's Senate in the 1950's. The British's Parliament has governed Britain with tremendous continuity for about 325 years now, and it has on the whole only become more democratic over that time. The Soviet Union fell, East Germany fell. Brazil is ripe for democratic reform. Even China probably won't be able to stave off democracy forever at its current pace of development.
- 13y ago

javajosh 13y ago

Reading this article it suddenly became clear: FISA is an Executive Branch agency that defends executive actions, much like the DoJ. In other words, it is the DoJ. When it (at least) comes to the 4th Amendment, the executive branch has manipulated Section 215 of the Patriot managed to totally unchain itself from the Constitution and do whatever it wants, in secret, from both the public and the other branches of government. The magnitude of this is stunning. Historically, the executive has unchained itself for brief periods for specific issues. I do not know of any attempt to unchain itself in perpetuity, and in secret. The fact that anyone finds it the least defensible is even more stunning. I mean, even if you are for mass surveillance (and there are many who legitimately feel that way) surely you must be concerned that it was done without your knowledge or consent. There are two paths to solving this problem, both of which result in striking down Section 215 of the Patriot Act: a court challenge (which the EFF is spear-heading) and an act of Congress (which is very unlikely given the lack of public awareness and uproar). Personally, I would like to see an additional censure on Obama and all other executive, legislative, and judicia officials who abrogated their duty to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. It needs to be our harshest censure, to send a message to future administrations that secret coups will not be tolerated.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago
You are correct. This is quite stunning. My reaction when thinking about what we've created is "awestruck" -- and I mean that in the initial meaning of the word. It's an amazingly giant cluster fuck. I don't see a way out, and I believe it's only a matter of time, perhaps only a few years, before the executive starts using this power for political gain. And then we are well and truly screwed. ADD: One counter-argument might be that the president can't use this for direct political gain because of all the other laws and structures we've put in place to prevent direct meddling. Believing that is true, which I don't, we're left with an even worse calamity: mid-level managers who will effectively have the power of kings while making 100K per year. As we've seen in many other mid-level management scandals, including the IRS, for the guy getting screwed it doesn't make much difference whether it's the president or some nameless bureaucrat being paid off by the mob who's doing it. Hurts just the same. Still just as bad. In fact, the president directly abusing this power is probably the best of all possible bad outcomes. Gives us one person to blame.

ChrisAntaki 13y ago

Laws we can't see need to be repealed.

DanielBMarkham 13y ago

"We don’t know what we’ll find. The surveillance court may be strictly adhering to the limits of the Fourth Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Or not. And that’s the problem: This court has morphed into an odd hybrid that seems to exist outside the justice system, even as its power grows in ways that we can’t see." Don't forget the argument from the other day, though. The Fourth Amendment specifically outlines the use of a "reasonableness" test. If it seems reasonable to the average man, it's probably okay. Without anybody knowing what's going on, however, there is no common man to check with to see if the government is acting in a reasonable way. Therefore for all intents and purposes there are no limits, aside from precedent, which is wonderfully flexible given the right semantic nudging.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]