7 ms·

Can you comment on the difference between the 1st and 4th Amendment? It seems the current issues we face are reducible to the broadest interpretations of "reaso

by robg 13y ago

Can you comment on the difference between the 1st and 4th Amendment? It seems the current issues we face are reducible to the broadest interpretations of "reasonable" searches under National Defense claims from the Executive branch. It's hard for me to see how the Public has much recourse here. Even if they were to convince their representatives to pass new laws, this still seems like a fight between the other two branches. The Executive branch could ignore those laws under Executive privilege claims. And the Court seems more than willing to abide by that use of Executive power. Am I missing something? Short of a generational movement to move the Court on civil rights toward information privacy (akin perhaps to medical privacy claims), I really don't see an alternative. The Executive branch has every incentive to maintain their power here (and argue as such under the War Powers). And the Court seems all too willing to cede that authority.

dragontamer 13y ago
While the parent post is the #1 comment right now on this article, it is clearly hyperbole. Blatant Intimidation and Control is not what the US Government does. If you want proof, compare the US handling of the Washington Post to the British handling of The Guardian. The Washington Post and New York times have been free to publish everything. The Guardian however, just had spooks smash their computers this past weekend. The US affords the press freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of debate. There are no spooks here that are trying to shut anything down, anywhere. At worst, we have some secret conversation that happened between Lavabit's owners and the FBI. No one forced anyone to shut anything down however, most certainly not in this Groklaw case. Abuses that have come to light are all under-the-table sort of affairs. Metadata collection is not technically data, and therefore isn't afforded 4th amendment protections. (See Smith v Maryland). Information gathered from the NSA technically can't be used in a prosecution case, so the DEA unofficially changes the story before it gets told to a judge (see Parallel Construction). Some laws are working, but there are cracks in the foundation which is leading to an overall breakdown in trust. If anything, viewing the news recently has shown me that these agencies are very interested in following the _letter_ of the law, although not necessarily the spirit of the law. ------------------------ History of the US is a sobering example, of the Government constantly giving up powers in favor of its citizens. Need I remind people of the Office of Censorship in 1940s, where Government agents read every single mail that was going across the mail system? Need I remind people of COINTELPRO in 1960s, the program the FBI used to spy on Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr ? The US Government has historically listened to the pressures of its citizenry, and changed. It is not the time to lose hope, but the time to make your voice heard. FBI and NSA, as intimidating as they are, are run by US Citizens first and foremost.
- rolux 13y ago
  > Blatant Intimidation and Control is not what the US Government does. If you want proof, compare the US handling of the Washington Post to the British handling of The Guardian. The Washington Post and New York times have been free to publish everything. Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    Precisely. The Post and the New York Times were free to publish this material. It has consequences of course, but none of them were levied against the Washington Post or New York Times. The US Government does not punish the press for receiving, discussing or talking about that sort of information. Instead, it goes after the leakers. Discussion, and freedom of speech is much respected. If anything, your link is but one more example that supports my point.
    - rolux 13y ago
      Please read the paragraph on Judith Miller. You must be kidding.
      - dragontamer 13y ago
        Fair enough. Although I still argue my point: the Press is free to publish what it wants. Judith Miller was charged with contempt of court for failing to reveal her source. She was not charged with what she wrote. If the best example of US Government censorship is Judith Miller, then my point remains very strong. No one in the US is stopping freedom of speech. At best, you can get arrested for failing to uphold a subpoena, which is a known fact anyway. --- Furthermore, despite the whole affair, not a single report of Spooks coming in to destroy computers, or otherwise try and stop the publication of those events. (As has been seen in the UK right now, with the whole Guardian thing going on).
- samstave 13y ago
  >The US Government has historically listened to the pressures of its citizenry, and changed While they may have changed tactics and methods they did not stop the nefarious activity. I think you're naive to think that protesting the USGs actions have led them to stop any of it - actually it has only led to to their attempt to obfuscate their actions. Do you recall when "The office of total information awareness" was railed against? Where it was said to be a Very Bad Thing - and it was supposedly shuttered? Well, what do you think PRISM is a program of. The NSA IS the office of total information awareness.

by robg 13y ago

dragontamer 13y ago

While the parent post is the #1 comment right now on this article, it is clearly hyperbole. Blatant Intimidation and Control is not what the US Government does. If you want proof, compare the US handling of the Washington Post to the British handling of The Guardian. The Washington Post and New York times have been free to publish everything. The Guardian however, just had spooks smash their computers this past weekend. The US affords the press freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of debate. There are no spooks here that are trying to shut anything down, anywhere. At worst, we have some secret conversation that happened between Lavabit's owners and the FBI. No one forced anyone to shut anything down however, most certainly not in this Groklaw case. Abuses that have come to light are all under-the-table sort of affairs. Metadata collection is not technically data, and therefore isn't afforded 4th amendment protections. (See Smith v Maryland). Information gathered from the NSA technically can't be used in a prosecution case, so the DEA unofficially changes the story before it gets told to a judge (see Parallel Construction). Some laws are working, but there are cracks in the foundation which is leading to an overall breakdown in trust. If anything, viewing the news recently has shown me that these agencies are very interested in following the _letter_ of the law, although not necessarily the spirit of the law. ------------------------ History of the US is a sobering example, of the Government constantly giving up powers in favor of its citizens. Need I remind people of the Office of Censorship in 1940s, where Government agents read every single mail that was going across the mail system? Need I remind people of COINTELPRO in 1960s, the program the FBI used to spy on Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr ? The US Government has historically listened to the pressures of its citizenry, and changed. It is not the time to lose hope, but the time to make your voice heard. FBI and NSA, as intimidating as they are, are run by US Citizens first and foremost.

rolux 13y ago
> Blatant Intimidation and Control is not what the US Government does. If you want proof, compare the US handling of the Washington Post to the British handling of The Guardian. The Washington Post and New York times have been free to publish everything. Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
- dragontamer 13y ago
  Precisely. The Post and the New York Times were free to publish this material. It has consequences of course, but none of them were levied against the Washington Post or New York Times. The US Government does not punish the press for receiving, discussing or talking about that sort of information. Instead, it goes after the leakers. Discussion, and freedom of speech is much respected. If anything, your link is but one more example that supports my point.
  - rolux 13y ago
    Please read the paragraph on Judith Miller. You must be kidding.
    - dragontamer 13y ago
      Fair enough. Although I still argue my point: the Press is free to publish what it wants. Judith Miller was charged with contempt of court for failing to reveal her source. She was not charged with what she wrote. If the best example of US Government censorship is Judith Miller, then my point remains very strong. No one in the US is stopping freedom of speech. At best, you can get arrested for failing to uphold a subpoena, which is a known fact anyway. --- Furthermore, despite the whole affair, not a single report of Spooks coming in to destroy computers, or otherwise try and stop the publication of those events. (As has been seen in the UK right now, with the whole Guardian thing going on).
samstave 13y ago
>The US Government has historically listened to the pressures of its citizenry, and changed While they may have changed tactics and methods they did not stop the nefarious activity. I think you're naive to think that protesting the USGs actions have led them to stop any of it - actually it has only led to to their attempt to obfuscate their actions. Do you recall when "The office of total information awareness" was railed against? Where it was said to be a Very Bad Thing - and it was supposedly shuttered? Well, what do you think PRISM is a program of. The NSA IS the office of total information awareness.