13 ms·

People are upset because of this new standard of "grab everything, put it in a 'secure' location and mine it in the future for past crimes." The main concern i

People are upset because of this new standard of "grab everything, put it in a 'secure' location and mine it in the future for past crimes." The main concern is that something you did today may become a crime tomorrow, so now entire populations are apparently in the situation of Schrodinger's cat: we are both criminals and not criminals, and only the indistinct future will determine where we end up. If you want a society where an individual is free to pursue their interests as long as they don't hurt anyone, it makes a lot of sense to have a transparent set of rules that are applied equitably to every citizen, regardless of their demographics or background. If you want a society where the individual is completely at the whims of mysterious and unknown forces that can destroy their life utterly for no apparent reason at all, well then carve out special exceptions for some while reserving harsh punishments for others. Introduce secret courts, evidence and trials... Institute a "permanent record" of someone's behavior that can be used to manipulate them as desired. Break the well-thought out control systems that help avoid abuses all to make "LEO easier." I'm assuming every experience you've ever had with law enforcement is positive?

eurleif 13y ago
>The main concern is that something you did today may become a crime tomorrow Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US.
- valarauca1 13y ago
  A lot of unconstitutional practices are law in the US http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
  - rayiner 13y ago
    That page is about 95% bullshit. For example: the establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or preventing the free exercise of religion. It doesn't prevent the government from simply monitoring religious and political groups that may be associated with illegal activity. That argument is ridiculous on its face: if the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of assembly, and gangs are assemblies of people, and monitoring is the same as restricting the freedom, does that mean the government can't monitor gangs? We know that's not what the 1st amendment means for the simple reason that the U.S.G. has performed internal counter-insurgency from the very beginning, and those practices were overseen by many of the same people that drafted the Constitution. There are not a "lot of unconstitutional practices" that are law in the U.S. There are a lot of people who read the words in the Bill of Rights extremely broadly and without historical or legal context, and then put up poorly-designed web pages about all the "unconstitutional" things they have discovered.
    - enoch_r 13y ago
      I don't disagree with your overall point, but "We know that's not what the 1st amendment means for the simple reason that the U.S.G. has performed internal counter-insurgency from the very beginning, and those practices were overseen by many of the same people that drafted the Constitution" is not strong evidence. The Alien and Sedition Acts[0] were passed in 1798 and were signed by (Federalist) John Adams. The next (Democratic-Republican) president, Thomas Jefferson, opposed them enough to pardon people who had been convicted under them, but then proceeded to prosecute several of his critics under the Acts before they expired. So yeah, a surprisingly bad beginning for free speech in the US. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
- middleclick 13y ago
  > Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly that is being violated as the recent ruling on NSA data collection has pointed out.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    The NSA data collecting as of right now is in fact not illegal. There are still debates if it should be or not, but as of right now, it is not.
    - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
      Not according to a US District Judge who granted a preliminary injunction against the phone spying. Please don't parrot the politicians who claim legality. The fourth amendment is clear enough to prohibit this government conduct.
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        One says yes, one says no, so therefore it is still up in the air. Until there is a definitive ruling on the matter you can't claim it is illegal...it is still a gray area until something like the Supreme Court definitively rules one way or another.
        hnriot 13y ago
        while a gray area it is still legal. It's only illegal when the courts say it is, so de-facto it's legal. That's a pretty basic property of the US democratic system.
        tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        You're confusing "innocent until proven guilty" with a constitutional law question. There is no "presumption" that the executive branch is operating lawfully.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  > unconstitutional in the US So is warrant-less wiretapping, but that didn't stop NSA.
  - dopamean 13y ago
    The point is that FBI cases go to court. You're not going to be prosecuted in a US court for something that was legal when you did it and illegal when it was found out.
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      My point once you start tolerating unconstitutional laws you undermine the whole purpose of the constitution. It must be the supreme law, or it's just another easily bypassed piece of legislation.
  - thrownaway2424 13y ago
    The thing is the enforcement mechanism against unreasonable search is the state loses at court. If the state never brings a case they have more freedom. This is also the reason why the police need not advise you of your rights before interrogating you if they don't plan to charge you. If the feds bring unrelated cases based on these seizures I'm sure the admissibility of the evidence will be the main thing being argued in court.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      It's just as likely that the questionably sourced information will be used to guide a parallel construction case.
      - thrownaway2424 13y ago
        Great, so you've read a blog and you learned a word. Good for you. There's still no civil opportunity to challenge government behavior in a vacuum. Article III Section 2 requires a "case or controversy."
- wavefunction 13y ago
  So is torture. And we've got laws against laundering money for criminal enterprises. If anything, the last 15 years has shown me that 'anything' is possible.
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  So is hauling Bradley Manning to a cell without due process and torturing him for years?
  - slg 13y ago
    Whether you personally agree with the ethics of it, a person gives up several of their constitutional rights when they join the military.
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      A person has no constitutional rights, he has natural ones. In other words, a piece of paper does not grant anyone any rights, not even the right to extort people (ie. to tax them).
      - phaus 13y ago
        Call them whatever kind of rights you want, but when Manning and everyone else (myself included) signed up for the Army, we waived them.
        whatevsbro 13y ago
        What kind of things you can voluntarily, bindingly agree to is another matter. I just wanted to point out that the constitution has nothing to do with our rights as human beings, and can't remove or grant any. It's wrong to think about rights as something the government gives you - actually the government only violates them.
        phaus 13y ago
        A total absence of government would be just as destructive to your natural rights as a government with too much power over its citizens. The government didn't grant you the rights, but in some situations its very capable of preserving them. There are two main problems with the United States, the first is that too many of us are ready and willing to trade personal freedom for economic and physical safety. The second is that we allowed money to control politics.
- strathmeyer 13y ago
  I wasn't aware of any Constitutional rights that I as a US citizen should feel like I should actually have. I just know that I can't complain about it or upset the people in power, or else I'll be killed, put in without cause or trial jail, or have my property confiscated.
- drjesusphd 13y ago
  What about the behavior of the NSA and their guardians in Congress and the courts makes you think they give a flying fuck?
mox1 13y ago
I understand people who have an issue with the "grab everything" mentality. But, from a technology point of view, how else do you do it? Imagine your the FBI IT guy. How long do you think it would take YOU to walk into an unknown datacenter, locate the specific computer / IP address referenced in the warrant, connect to that computer and copy just the minimum amount of data necessary to prosecute said bad guy (just his e-mail .mbox file? or is this a windows shop..grab the pst? What about backups? What about his contact list? All this just for e-mail!) Often times he probably doesn't even know the specifics of the case. Maybe just let the local DataCenter guy copy the data off for you right? Well hopefully hes honest and not involved in the crime. The fact of the matter is, it is 100x easier to walk in, grab the servers of interest and walk out. If the FBI IT guy is smart and prepared he just brings tools to remove the hard drives from the server, copy them and put them back. BUT, if theres child porn, contraband, etc. the FBI is NOT giving that computer back any time soon. Doesn't matter who owns it.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  So because of an overly-broad warrant, or lack of training, or vague suspicions or even the mere chance that your data happened to be stored on the same box as Criminal A, we should just allow the FBI to violate the Constitution? Reductio ad absurdum with your argument and we should just let the FBI run all internet infrastructure, because it is expedient for the FBI, it makes life easier on the FBI, and they can inspect your data to their heart's content. It is a much preferable situation to the one where an FBI agent has to do something complicated. Nowhere do I see you advocating for the innocent whose rights are infringed upon.
  - mox1 13y ago
    The Constitution specifically states "unreasonable search and seizures". I did not say it should be easy for the FBI to collect. I specifically was referring to "reasonable". Again, if you were tasked with collecting this data, how do you do it reasonably? Sometimes the most reasonable thing is to simply copy the hard drives the data is living on.
    - 13y ago
diydsp 13y ago
> The main concern What you have said above is correct, however it is not the "main" concern. There are numerous concerns. That is one key one. Since I have not seen others post other key concerns, I will also contribute an additional concern: Sensitive data left lying around are/is very tempting to use for illegal economic and blackmail gains. The FBI in particular has a pattern of getting indicted for re-selling sensitive data, even before massive amounts of "seize now, convict later" was taking place.
- anfedorov 13y ago
  > The FBI in particular has a pattern of getting indicted for re-selling sensitive data Source?
  - diydsp 13y ago
    NYPFCB.
    - anfedorov 13y ago
      ?
hawkharris 13y ago
it makes a lot of sense to have a transparent set of rules that are applied equitably to every citizen, regardless of their demographics or background. It sounds like your response is based on broad ideological convictions that have little to do with the commenter's argument. He or she is arguing that the NSA is not equivalent to the FBI because the FBI, in this case, did follow established procedures to obtain a conviction. If you want a society where the individual is completely at the whims of mysterious and unknown forces that can destroy their life utterly for no apparent reason at all, well then carve out special exceptions for some while reserving harsh punishments for others. In order for this comment to be relevant, you'll have to establish how it relates to the details of this case.
diminoten 13y ago
Has that ever actually happened? Person did X, X later became illegal, and Person was prosecuted for doing X because of a digital footprint left behind while doing X?

eurleif 13y ago

>The main concern is that something you did today may become a crime tomorrow Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US.

valarauca1 13y ago
A lot of unconstitutional practices are law in the US http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-vs-const.html
- rayiner 13y ago
  That page is about 95% bullshit. For example: the establishment clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or preventing the free exercise of religion. It doesn't prevent the government from simply monitoring religious and political groups that may be associated with illegal activity. That argument is ridiculous on its face: if the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of assembly, and gangs are assemblies of people, and monitoring is the same as restricting the freedom, does that mean the government can't monitor gangs? We know that's not what the 1st amendment means for the simple reason that the U.S.G. has performed internal counter-insurgency from the very beginning, and those practices were overseen by many of the same people that drafted the Constitution. There are not a "lot of unconstitutional practices" that are law in the U.S. There are a lot of people who read the words in the Bill of Rights extremely broadly and without historical or legal context, and then put up poorly-designed web pages about all the "unconstitutional" things they have discovered.
  - enoch_r 13y ago
    I don't disagree with your overall point, but "We know that's not what the 1st amendment means for the simple reason that the U.S.G. has performed internal counter-insurgency from the very beginning, and those practices were overseen by many of the same people that drafted the Constitution" is not strong evidence. The Alien and Sedition Acts[0] were passed in 1798 and were signed by (Federalist) John Adams. The next (Democratic-Republican) president, Thomas Jefferson, opposed them enough to pardon people who had been convicted under them, but then proceeded to prosecute several of his critics under the Acts before they expired. So yeah, a surprisingly bad beginning for free speech in the US. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
middleclick 13y ago
> Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional in the US. The Fourth Amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Clearly that is being violated as the recent ruling on NSA data collection has pointed out.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  The NSA data collecting as of right now is in fact not illegal. There are still debates if it should be or not, but as of right now, it is not.
  - tsaoutourpants 13y ago
    Not according to a US District Judge who granted a preliminary injunction against the phone spying. Please don't parrot the politicians who claim legality. The fourth amendment is clear enough to prohibit this government conduct.
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      One says yes, one says no, so therefore it is still up in the air. Until there is a definitive ruling on the matter you can't claim it is illegal...it is still a gray area until something like the Supreme Court definitively rules one way or another.
      - hnriot 13y ago
        while a gray area it is still legal. It's only illegal when the courts say it is, so de-facto it's legal. That's a pretty basic property of the US democratic system.
        tsaoutourpants 13y ago
        You're confusing "innocent until proven guilty" with a constitutional law question. There is no "presumption" that the executive branch is operating lawfully.
Ygg2 13y ago
> unconstitutional in the US So is warrant-less wiretapping, but that didn't stop NSA.
- dopamean 13y ago
  The point is that FBI cases go to court. You're not going to be prosecuted in a US court for something that was legal when you did it and illegal when it was found out.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    My point once you start tolerating unconstitutional laws you undermine the whole purpose of the constitution. It must be the supreme law, or it's just another easily bypassed piece of legislation.
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  The thing is the enforcement mechanism against unreasonable search is the state loses at court. If the state never brings a case they have more freedom. This is also the reason why the police need not advise you of your rights before interrogating you if they don't plan to charge you. If the feds bring unrelated cases based on these seizures I'm sure the admissibility of the evidence will be the main thing being argued in court.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    It's just as likely that the questionably sourced information will be used to guide a parallel construction case.
    - thrownaway2424 13y ago
      Great, so you've read a blog and you learned a word. Good for you. There's still no civil opportunity to challenge government behavior in a vacuum. Article III Section 2 requires a "case or controversy."
wavefunction 13y ago
So is torture. And we've got laws against laundering money for criminal enterprises. If anything, the last 15 years has shown me that 'anything' is possible.
whatevsbro 13y ago
So is hauling Bradley Manning to a cell without due process and torturing him for years?
- slg 13y ago
  Whether you personally agree with the ethics of it, a person gives up several of their constitutional rights when they join the military.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    A person has no constitutional rights, he has natural ones. In other words, a piece of paper does not grant anyone any rights, not even the right to extort people (ie. to tax them).
    - phaus 13y ago
      Call them whatever kind of rights you want, but when Manning and everyone else (myself included) signed up for the Army, we waived them.
      - whatevsbro 13y ago
        What kind of things you can voluntarily, bindingly agree to is another matter. I just wanted to point out that the constitution has nothing to do with our rights as human beings, and can't remove or grant any. It's wrong to think about rights as something the government gives you - actually the government only violates them.
        phaus 13y ago
        A total absence of government would be just as destructive to your natural rights as a government with too much power over its citizens. The government didn't grant you the rights, but in some situations its very capable of preserving them. There are two main problems with the United States, the first is that too many of us are ready and willing to trade personal freedom for economic and physical safety. The second is that we allowed money to control politics.
strathmeyer 13y ago
I wasn't aware of any Constitutional rights that I as a US citizen should feel like I should actually have. I just know that I can't complain about it or upset the people in power, or else I'll be killed, put in without cause or trial jail, or have my property confiscated.
drjesusphd 13y ago
What about the behavior of the NSA and their guardians in Congress and the courts makes you think they give a flying fuck?

mox1 13y ago

I understand people who have an issue with the "grab everything" mentality. But, from a technology point of view, how else do you do it? Imagine your the FBI IT guy. How long do you think it would take YOU to walk into an unknown datacenter, locate the specific computer / IP address referenced in the warrant, connect to that computer and copy just the minimum amount of data necessary to prosecute said bad guy (just his e-mail .mbox file? or is this a windows shop..grab the pst? What about backups? What about his contact list? All this just for e-mail!) Often times he probably doesn't even know the specifics of the case. Maybe just let the local DataCenter guy copy the data off for you right? Well hopefully hes honest and not involved in the crime. The fact of the matter is, it is 100x easier to walk in, grab the servers of interest and walk out. If the FBI IT guy is smart and prepared he just brings tools to remove the hard drives from the server, copy them and put them back. BUT, if theres child porn, contraband, etc. the FBI is NOT giving that computer back any time soon. Doesn't matter who owns it.

wavefunction 13y ago
So because of an overly-broad warrant, or lack of training, or vague suspicions or even the mere chance that your data happened to be stored on the same box as Criminal A, we should just allow the FBI to violate the Constitution? Reductio ad absurdum with your argument and we should just let the FBI run all internet infrastructure, because it is expedient for the FBI, it makes life easier on the FBI, and they can inspect your data to their heart's content. It is a much preferable situation to the one where an FBI agent has to do something complicated. Nowhere do I see you advocating for the innocent whose rights are infringed upon.
- mox1 13y ago
  The Constitution specifically states "unreasonable search and seizures". I did not say it should be easy for the FBI to collect. I specifically was referring to "reasonable". Again, if you were tasked with collecting this data, how do you do it reasonably? Sometimes the most reasonable thing is to simply copy the hard drives the data is living on.
  - 13y ago

diydsp 13y ago

> The main concern What you have said above is correct, however it is not the "main" concern. There are numerous concerns. That is one key one. Since I have not seen others post other key concerns, I will also contribute an additional concern: Sensitive data left lying around are/is very tempting to use for illegal economic and blackmail gains. The FBI in particular has a pattern of getting indicted for re-selling sensitive data, even before massive amounts of "seize now, convict later" was taking place.

anfedorov 13y ago
> The FBI in particular has a pattern of getting indicted for re-selling sensitive data Source?
- diydsp 13y ago
  NYPFCB.
  - anfedorov 13y ago
    ?

hawkharris 13y ago

it makes a lot of sense to have a transparent set of rules that are applied equitably to every citizen, regardless of their demographics or background. It sounds like your response is based on broad ideological convictions that have little to do with the commenter's argument. He or she is arguing that the NSA is not equivalent to the FBI because the FBI, in this case, did follow established procedures to obtain a conviction. If you want a society where the individual is completely at the whims of mysterious and unknown forces that can destroy their life utterly for no apparent reason at all, well then carve out special exceptions for some while reserving harsh punishments for others. In order for this comment to be relevant, you'll have to establish how it relates to the details of this case.

diminoten 13y ago

Has that ever actually happened? Person did X, X later became illegal, and Person was prosecuted for doing X because of a digital footprint left behind while doing X?