4 ms·

Funny how Alexander says he's read the Constitution, and implores the heckler to do the same. If one can read the Constitution and square the NSA's mass surveil

Funny how Alexander says he's read the Constitution, and implores the heckler to do the same. If one can read the Constitution and square the NSA's mass surveillance with the 4th amendment then one can square a circle. There really is no point in debating people like this on the technicalities of the Constitution. What they understand is power. He has it and we don't. He knows how to pull the levers that matter, and which Congressman and executive branch bureaucrats to lean on to make sure his bailiwick is not reduced by a single inch. The rest of us, sadly, are left flailing around hoping that pointing to a piece of paper is an effective check on evil.

lukifer 13y ago
My understanding is that their Constitutional dodge is rooted in Scalia's originalism: the 4th says "papers", which means specifically physical pieces of paper, not phone calls or emails. What I've been wondering about though, is the legal definition of "effects" (noun, not verb). That term seems very broad to me, and should include emails, but I'm not a lawyer.
- talmand 13y ago
  They don't need a dodge, they just ignore the law or get new laws that circumvent previous laws. With little or no oversight this is easily accomplished. Especially since the group that requires oversight is gathering information and information is power. This is nothing new, read up on J. Edgar Hoover with his wiretapping and files on almost everybody. Sometimes with White House knowledge and approval, sometimes without. All this while completely ignoring that quaint document down the street called the Constitution. Doing things like that is easy if you can hand over a note to someone that starts out "It'd be a shame if people found out about [insert criminal/embarrassing act here]." Information is power.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    Oh, I agree. But they do successfully maintain the veneer. Regardless of how, the Supreme Court is complicit, and they engage in some tortured linguistic judo in the process.
cookiecaper 13y ago
The NSA is filtering a public utility. The users of this utility choose what information they want to broadcast, and should do so with the full knowledge that this information is being bounced between dozens of routers every time it goes out, any one of which may be monitored by its owners. This information ultimately ends up at the destination IP address, whose owner is able to use this data in whichever manner he sees fit, including submittal of said data to a major governmental intelligence organization as occurs with PRISM. The problem is that people foolishly assume that the plaintext packets they send online are private by default. As in real life, good privacy can only be assured by significant effort on the part of the communicants. Is it evil to observe something occurring on a public street corner? It is not different to observe something occuring on a public IP router.
- ibejoeb 13y ago
  That's a stretch. I don't expect privacy when I shout on the street corner; that's broadcasting. I do expect privacy when I send email, because that's totally bounded. The postal system is a public utility. Should it be filtered? What we're arguing now is why one envelope is special. I put my communications in paper envelope and I'm protected, but when I put it in an SMTP envelope, I'm not. I'd like someone to rationalize that. As far as I'm concerned, let's do it one way or another. Either protect email or start OCRing the post.
  - cookiecaper 13y ago
    See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6138355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6138355
- mr_spothawk 13y ago
  >"The microphones in every nook and cranny are merely filtering a public good, the air. You should know that when you vibrate the air with your vocal chords to make the sound of words, you're willingly broadcasting information patterns in quadrillions of particles in the air. It's not our fault you're so stupid about your security." Don't be dense. Letters are easily intercepted and read, but we still expect that the government is not doing so because the constitution forbids that sort of behavior and the judicial branch is supposed to protect us from it. You're conflating privacy with security. Security requires encryption, etc... privacy exists in the absence of monitoring devices.

lukifer 13y ago

My understanding is that their Constitutional dodge is rooted in Scalia's originalism: the 4th says "papers", which means specifically physical pieces of paper, not phone calls or emails. What I've been wondering about though, is the legal definition of "effects" (noun, not verb). That term seems very broad to me, and should include emails, but I'm not a lawyer.

talmand 13y ago
They don't need a dodge, they just ignore the law or get new laws that circumvent previous laws. With little or no oversight this is easily accomplished. Especially since the group that requires oversight is gathering information and information is power. This is nothing new, read up on J. Edgar Hoover with his wiretapping and files on almost everybody. Sometimes with White House knowledge and approval, sometimes without. All this while completely ignoring that quaint document down the street called the Constitution. Doing things like that is easy if you can hand over a note to someone that starts out "It'd be a shame if people found out about [insert criminal/embarrassing act here]." Information is power.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Oh, I agree. But they do successfully maintain the veneer. Regardless of how, the Supreme Court is complicit, and they engage in some tortured linguistic judo in the process.

cookiecaper 13y ago

The NSA is filtering a public utility. The users of this utility choose what information they want to broadcast, and should do so with the full knowledge that this information is being bounced between dozens of routers every time it goes out, any one of which may be monitored by its owners. This information ultimately ends up at the destination IP address, whose owner is able to use this data in whichever manner he sees fit, including submittal of said data to a major governmental intelligence organization as occurs with PRISM. The problem is that people foolishly assume that the plaintext packets they send online are private by default. As in real life, good privacy can only be assured by significant effort on the part of the communicants. Is it evil to observe something occurring on a public street corner? It is not different to observe something occuring on a public IP router.

ibejoeb 13y ago
That's a stretch. I don't expect privacy when I shout on the street corner; that's broadcasting. I do expect privacy when I send email, because that's totally bounded. The postal system is a public utility. Should it be filtered? What we're arguing now is why one envelope is special. I put my communications in paper envelope and I'm protected, but when I put it in an SMTP envelope, I'm not. I'd like someone to rationalize that. As far as I'm concerned, let's do it one way or another. Either protect email or start OCRing the post.
- cookiecaper 13y ago
  See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6138355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6138355
mr_spothawk 13y ago
>"The microphones in every nook and cranny are merely filtering a public good, the air. You should know that when you vibrate the air with your vocal chords to make the sound of words, you're willingly broadcasting information patterns in quadrillions of particles in the air. It's not our fault you're so stupid about your security." Don't be dense. Letters are easily intercepted and read, but we still expect that the government is not doing so because the constitution forbids that sort of behavior and the judicial branch is supposed to protect us from it. You're conflating privacy with security. Security requires encryption, etc... privacy exists in the absence of monitoring devices.