5 ms·

> I just wanted to say that people who support the NSA aren't hiding in fear. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be backed by evidence. Every single lawsuit

by diafygi 12y ago

> I just wanted to say that people who support the NSA aren't hiding in fear. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be backed by evidence. Every single lawsuit challenging mass surveillance has been resisted by the Executive on the basis of state secrets and lack of standing. The Executive is using a judicial tactic to avoid having to answer the question of whether these programs are constitutional. When that question is asked, it usually ends in the programs being illegal[1][2][3]. So if you're not afraid, would you mind answering some questions? One of the biggest problems I have right now is that your side simply stonewalls or deflects core questions thrown by my side. I would love to be convinced that what you're doing is right. 1) How are broad secret court[4] and non-court[5] orders constitutional? The 4th Amendment appears to only allow targeted warrants, so from where does the government draw this broad surveillance power? So far, the only legal defense been invoking the state secrets privilege[6], which prevents the core question from being addressed. 2) How is the DEA's parallel construction program[7] constitutional? This seems as if the DEA is not allowing a fair trail by withholding evidence from the defendant. 3) If you think the above are unconstitutional, why should they be allowed to exist? How can the rule of law persist with unclear or secret exceptions? Are there things that are more important than the rule of law? What possible impacts does this prioritization have? I thought we should strive to live under a rule-of-law, and I feel like the Executive and their workers (including you) don't mind having a rule-of-man system. Please convince me otherwise. [1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-nailed-webcam-to-utility-pole-for-6-weeks-to-spy-on-house/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/cops-illegally-na... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States [3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-surveillance-by-spy-agencies-was-illegal-british-court-says.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/world/europe/electronic-su... [4]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-about-prism https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-a... [5]: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters [6]: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/state-secrets-privilege [7]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intelligence-laundering https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/dea-and-nsa-team-intel...

bhayden 12y ago
I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn't really matter if it's legal or constitutional, because if it's not then they'll change the laws or reinterpret them in a new way or write a new Patriot Act. What we should focus on is whether a government should be allowed to operate in secrecy, without any public oversight or knowledge, and whether the government can be morally justified in surveilling citizens without probable cause.
- judemelancon 12y ago
  It matters to me, at least, that the law be followed as written. Rule by whim and secret dictate does not seem like a good system of government.
  - bhayden 12y ago
    It matters to me too, but it's not the root of the problem.
  - EGreg 12y ago
    What if the law says that secret courts can decide using secret proceedings?
    - ethbro 12y ago
      > What if the law says that secret courts can decide using secret proceedings? Then at least it's on the books as a choice our society has made. OP's issue is there's currently no clear legal chain of certain programs back to a democratic decision.
      - EGreg 12y ago
        The FISA courts have been authorized by an Act of Congress. That's what the checks and balances are for, though, and the courts can overturn it. I wonder if the system will stand uo though. The addiction to bigbdata is strong once tasted, and spy agencies actually enjoy getting away with stuff.

by diafygi 12y ago

bhayden 12y ago

I think you're focusing on the wrong thing. It doesn't really matter if it's legal or constitutional, because if it's not then they'll change the laws or reinterpret them in a new way or write a new Patriot Act. What we should focus on is whether a government should be allowed to operate in secrecy, without any public oversight or knowledge, and whether the government can be morally justified in surveilling citizens without probable cause.

judemelancon 12y ago
It matters to me, at least, that the law be followed as written. Rule by whim and secret dictate does not seem like a good system of government.
- bhayden 12y ago
  It matters to me too, but it's not the root of the problem.
- EGreg 12y ago
  What if the law says that secret courts can decide using secret proceedings?
  - ethbro 12y ago
    > What if the law says that secret courts can decide using secret proceedings? Then at least it's on the books as a choice our society has made. OP's issue is there's currently no clear legal chain of certain programs back to a democratic decision.
    - EGreg 12y ago
      The FISA courts have been authorized by an Act of Congress. That's what the checks and balances are for, though, and the courts can overturn it. I wonder if the system will stand uo though. The addiction to bigbdata is strong once tasted, and spy agencies actually enjoy getting away with stuff.