5 ms·

The NSA, breaking into US computers, is violating the Third Amendment, in my opinion. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the

by logn 13y ago

The NSA, breaking into US computers, is violating the Third Amendment, in my opinion. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

mattlutze 13y ago
I think this would be an extension of wiretapping, not soldiers taking residence forcefully in a home.
- infinity0 13y ago
  No. Malware is way more intrusive than wiretapping, it can affect your software. Implanting a chip into your brain to control your thoughts would be the extreme version of it.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    "Way more" intrusive doesn't conflict with "extension". It's just a more spirited adjectival phrase. Seems to be that what's described -- fake servers to watch traffic, turning on a mic to listen, turning on a camera to watch -- are all in spirit extensions of an intel agent sitting at an AT&T operator's switch and plugging into a line to listen to a conversation. Particularly that mic one. My contention was simply that it doesn't track that malware on a computer is anything like a soldier demanding to use someone's home as a bunk house.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      > My contention was simply that it doesn't track that malware on a computer is anything like a soldier demanding to use someone's home as a bunk house. I don't disagree, and IANAL, but there is a case to be made here that the spirit of the Third Amendment is to prevent military, or military-esque actors, from commandeering civilian property. On the other hand, in writing that, I realized there is something called commandeering and there are probably interesting relevant cases to go over to find whether or not that has any sense.
diydsp 13y ago
Interesting angle. Perhaps if research were to show that "soldier" could be more broadly interpreted to mean "agent of security," you could really get some momentum going for this line of though. After all, we aren't required to keep other pieces of security enforcement in our homes, such as turrets on the roof controlled by the government. Keep it up.
- rurounijones 13y ago
  There is a "War on terror" going on, as governments are very keen to point out all the time. Who fights wars on behalf of their governments... Ok, reasoning is a bit simplistic and technically inaccurate depending on your definition of "war" (congress approved etc.) but I do like hoisting by own petards.
pizza234 13y ago
At the time when this was written, there was a clear distinction between times of peace and war. Nowadays, especially from the start of the "War on terror", this distinction has been artificially demolished; one of the consequences is that there is way more leverage to wark around laws (and to do many other nasty things).
- bediger4000 13y ago
  I grant that funding for the War on Terror has taken place. But I also don't think that a real, formal declaration of war has been approved. So, is the USA at war or not? I suspect (but I'm only 52% certain) that we're not at war. The follow-on questions (after "are we at war or not?"): In what state are we? What are the legal ramifications of this half-at-war-state? Why hasn't the US Congress declared war since WW2? Is there some consequence to declaring war or not declaring war that they're trying to avoid?
  - rhino369 13y ago
    There is no requirement, either under the Constitution or under laws of war, for any sort of formal declaration. And, there as an "authorization of military force" against al Qaeda and the Taliban. There certainly isn't some magic I DECLARE WAR requirement. > Why hasn't the US Congress declared war since WW2? Is there some consequence to declaring war or not declaring war that they're trying to avoid? Its an outdated concept.
    - bediger4000 13y ago
      I seem to recall that we've got laws that make some crimes have a greater penalty during "time of war", which I assume means declared war. How do you mean "outdated concept"? Are there no more wars? Are their no different legal penalties or obligations during war any more? Because I'm told that the USA has been in wars since 2001 at least. What are the consequences to me, and to my government of outdating an official declaration of war?
    - betterunix 13y ago
lern_too_spel 13y ago
Where in the article did it say they were breaking into US computers? What's described in the article isn't as obviously illegal as that.

by logn 13y ago

mattlutze 13y ago

I think this would be an extension of wiretapping, not soldiers taking residence forcefully in a home.

infinity0 13y ago
No. Malware is way more intrusive than wiretapping, it can affect your software. Implanting a chip into your brain to control your thoughts would be the extreme version of it.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  "Way more" intrusive doesn't conflict with "extension". It's just a more spirited adjectival phrase. Seems to be that what's described -- fake servers to watch traffic, turning on a mic to listen, turning on a camera to watch -- are all in spirit extensions of an intel agent sitting at an AT&T operator's switch and plugging into a line to listen to a conversation. Particularly that mic one. My contention was simply that it doesn't track that malware on a computer is anything like a soldier demanding to use someone's home as a bunk house.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    > My contention was simply that it doesn't track that malware on a computer is anything like a soldier demanding to use someone's home as a bunk house. I don't disagree, and IANAL, but there is a case to be made here that the spirit of the Third Amendment is to prevent military, or military-esque actors, from commandeering civilian property. On the other hand, in writing that, I realized there is something called commandeering and there are probably interesting relevant cases to go over to find whether or not that has any sense.

diydsp 13y ago

Interesting angle. Perhaps if research were to show that "soldier" could be more broadly interpreted to mean "agent of security," you could really get some momentum going for this line of though. After all, we aren't required to keep other pieces of security enforcement in our homes, such as turrets on the roof controlled by the government. Keep it up.

rurounijones 13y ago
There is a "War on terror" going on, as governments are very keen to point out all the time. Who fights wars on behalf of their governments... Ok, reasoning is a bit simplistic and technically inaccurate depending on your definition of "war" (congress approved etc.) but I do like hoisting by own petards.

pizza234 13y ago

At the time when this was written, there was a clear distinction between times of peace and war. Nowadays, especially from the start of the "War on terror", this distinction has been artificially demolished; one of the consequences is that there is way more leverage to wark around laws (and to do many other nasty things).

bediger4000 13y ago
I grant that funding for the War on Terror has taken place. But I also don't think that a real, formal declaration of war has been approved. So, is the USA at war or not? I suspect (but I'm only 52% certain) that we're not at war. The follow-on questions (after "are we at war or not?"): In what state are we? What are the legal ramifications of this half-at-war-state? Why hasn't the US Congress declared war since WW2? Is there some consequence to declaring war or not declaring war that they're trying to avoid?
- rhino369 13y ago
  There is no requirement, either under the Constitution or under laws of war, for any sort of formal declaration. And, there as an "authorization of military force" against al Qaeda and the Taliban. There certainly isn't some magic I DECLARE WAR requirement. > Why hasn't the US Congress declared war since WW2? Is there some consequence to declaring war or not declaring war that they're trying to avoid? Its an outdated concept.
  - bediger4000 13y ago
    I seem to recall that we've got laws that make some crimes have a greater penalty during "time of war", which I assume means declared war. How do you mean "outdated concept"? Are there no more wars? Are their no different legal penalties or obligations during war any more? Because I'm told that the USA has been in wars since 2001 at least. What are the consequences to me, and to my government of outdating an official declaration of war?
  - betterunix 13y ago

lern_too_spel 13y ago

Where in the article did it say they were breaking into US computers? What's described in the article isn't as obviously illegal as that.