|
On July 16 2014 07:37 oneofthem wrote: you need to understand the american legal process. there's a political process, which makes laws, and the judicial, which puts interpretation fit to actual situations. judges can do so much within the confines of established laws on the books and precedents. As usual, you have ignored all of my questions and simply keep on talking like nobody just disagreed with you. So let's try again: Why are the judges on the side of more oversight? Since when? And why does that mean that the legal oversight has integrity?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you want to get into the whole 4th amendment debate relying on simple dictionary reading is not enough. in the pauley decision the case was actually dismissed on standing grounds. but on merit it was also not able to stand because the government passed the relevance test, that is their data collection was shown to be for the purpose of counterterrorism/intelligence gathering.
|
I'm not so familiar with American law, but I don't think it makes much sense to disregard the constitution for some kind of the means justify the ends thing. Constitutional rights are supposed to carry some weight. If you throw them away because that's the handy thing to do at the moment you can as well get rid of the constitution altogether.
Still my second point stands. If the 4th amendment does not apply to digital data, then people effectively have no sovereignty over their own information. I have yet to hear a coherent argument why a change from paper to online chat somehow means that the same laws don't apply anymore.
|
This is so out of context to this debate.... I cant even start to explain it because the SREL shit that was going on here the last thirty years would be enough to write a bestseller thriller. However this case has nothing to do with spying on other countries so I fail to see the comparison to the NSA. The rest of your post was good. But this was a bad point you made because, although the SREL broke several rules the "bommeleeer" trial (its about some bombs that exploded 20-30 years ago here in Luxembourg) brought revealed some of it. the population had reason not to trust into their gouvernement anymore, which why we have new political parties in the gouvernement this year after a new election which was caused because of mistrust caused by the SREL. I ask you would that be the same in the US? if the people wouldnt trust In their gouvernement because of the NSA would it be possible to have new elections?
|
On July 16 2014 08:02 Nyxisto wrote: I'm not so familiar with American law, but I don't think it makes much sense to disregard the constitution for some kind of the means justify the ends thing. Constitutional rights are supposed to carry some weight. If you throw them away because that's the handy thing to do at the moment you can as well get rid of the constitution altogether.
Still my second point stands. If the 4th amendment does not apply to digital data, then people effectively have no sovereignty over their own information. I have yet to hear a coherent argument why a change from paper to online chat somehow means that the same laws don't apply anymore. This is less about an ad hoc disregard for the Constitution and more about the nebulous nature of Internet-based communications when it comes to concepts like presence relative to access and the like.
|
On July 16 2014 08:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 08:02 Nyxisto wrote: I'm not so familiar with American law, but I don't think it makes much sense to disregard the constitution for some kind of the means justify the ends thing. Constitutional rights are supposed to carry some weight. If you throw them away because that's the handy thing to do at the moment you can as well get rid of the constitution altogether.
Still my second point stands. If the 4th amendment does not apply to digital data, then people effectively have no sovereignty over their own information. I have yet to hear a coherent argument why a change from paper to online chat somehow means that the same laws don't apply anymore. This is less about an ad hoc disregard for the Constitution and more about the nebulous nature of Internet-based communications when it comes to concepts like presence relative to access and the like.
What is so nebelous about the nature of Internet-based communication and their access?
|
On July 16 2014 08:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 08:08 farvacola wrote:On July 16 2014 08:02 Nyxisto wrote: I'm not so familiar with American law, but I don't think it makes much sense to disregard the constitution for some kind of the means justify the ends thing. Constitutional rights are supposed to carry some weight. If you throw them away because that's the handy thing to do at the moment you can as well get rid of the constitution altogether.
Still my second point stands. If the 4th amendment does not apply to digital data, then people effectively have no sovereignty over their own information. I have yet to hear a coherent argument why a change from paper to online chat somehow means that the same laws don't apply anymore. This is less about an ad hoc disregard for the Constitution and more about the nebulous nature of Internet-based communications when it comes to concepts like presence relative to access and the like. What is so nebelous about the nature of Internet-based communication and their access? Pretty much the idea that you do not have to invade a person's privacy/private space to access their internet communications. You just have to visit their ISP instead of their home, thus no invasion of privacy. At least that's the logic behind most arguments in that regard.
|
Just ask yourself this with concepts like chain of custody, informational granularity, and access in mind: what is the difference between sending a bill to a customer via snail mail and doing the same via an email platform?
|
You could make the same argument for letters or phone calls, and yet those are protected in any sane legislation.
The reason is actually quite simple. Old people who don't understand the internet make the laws. To any sane person, it should not make a legal difference if a call was made via skype or via a phone. Or if a letter was written on paper or per Email. These are obviously the simplest examples, but basically if something was intended to be a private communication between a limited amount of people, the government has no business in intercepting that communication, unlike they are actually able to get a legal warrant for a specific case.
Why is this so easy to accept for letters and phone calls, but somehow questionable if said communication is digital via the internet?
|
Because the apparatus that conducts Internet communications is not a discrete system like those employed by telephones or paper mail.
|
On July 16 2014 08:31 farvacola wrote: Because the apparatus that conducts Internet communications is not a discrete system like those employed by telephones or paper mail.
How do you mean? It goes through my ISP or email provider. What's not discrete about it?
|
On July 16 2014 08:49 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 08:31 farvacola wrote: Because the apparatus that conducts Internet communications is not a discrete system like those employed by telephones or paper mail. How do you mean? It goes through my ISP or email provider. What's not discrete about it? What does an ISP do?
Edit: The point I'm driving at is that the actual transmission of data via the Internet is not a simple "I gave so-and-so permission to send this to someone on my behalf." scheme in the way that the post or telephone is, and therein lies the gray area insofar as privacy and access are concerned.
|
On July 16 2014 08:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 08:49 DoubleReed wrote:On July 16 2014 08:31 farvacola wrote: Because the apparatus that conducts Internet communications is not a discrete system like those employed by telephones or paper mail. How do you mean? It goes through my ISP or email provider. What's not discrete about it? What does an ISP do? Edit: The point I'm driving at is that the actual transmission of data via the Internet is not a simple "I gave so-and-so permission to send this to someone on my behalf." scheme in the way that the post or telephone is, and therein lies the gray area insofar as privacy and access are concerned.
Err... well in this case the ISP gives NSA all my information.
I'm not sure why you think there's such a gray area there at all. Are you referring to a judicial ruling or something?
|
It is precisely the lack of a concrete judicial position on the nature of Internet privacy that tacitly allows the executive to sweep up data like a vacuum.
|
On July 16 2014 08:26 farvacola wrote: Just ask yourself this with concepts like chain of custody, informational granularity, and access in mind: what is the difference between sending a bill to a customer via snail mail and doing the same via an email platform? There is no reason to keep these things in mind. Two people want to communicate and they want to do it privately and secretly if they wish, without third party involvement. The governments job is to make sure that people have this right. The governments job is not to erode this right on the basis of semantic nonsense or technicalities.
You don't need physicists or cs majors in a debate about privacy rights.
On July 16 2014 09:06 farvacola wrote: It is precisely the lack of a concrete judicial position on the nature of Internet privacy that tacitly allows the executive to sweep up data like a vacuum. No, it's perfectly simple. If one person wants to communicate with another person, they want to do it without having some random nsa fucker reading/storing/analysing their data. There is a perfectly simple solution for this. Stop dragnet/ mass storage of information.
|
On July 16 2014 09:11 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 08:26 farvacola wrote: Just ask yourself this with concepts like chain of custody, informational granularity, and access in mind: what is the difference between sending a bill to a customer via snail mail and doing the same via an email platform? There is no reason to keep these things in mind. Two people want to communicate and they want to do it privately and secretly if they wish, without third party involvement. The governments job is to make sure that people have this right. The governments job is not to erode this right on the basis of semantic nonsense or technicalities. You don't need physicists or cs majors in a debate about privacy rights. If intention were the only thing needed in establishing the privacy of a given piece of correspondence, sending drugs through the mail would be a lot easier. It is your prerogative to consider the specifics of the transmission of internet data irrelevant, but you'd be mistaken to chalk this all up as a mere bit of semantic nonsense when, in fact, one could very well do the same with practically all codified laws. I'm not advocating on behalf of the executive; I'd very much like Eric Holder to disappear forever alongside much of what has been established in the name of executive privilege. But that doesn't make things any simpler.
|
On July 16 2014 09:06 farvacola wrote: It is precisely the lack of a concrete judicial position on the nature of Internet privacy that tacitly allows the executive to sweep up data like a vacuum.
So why did you make me run around with "it's not just handing somebody such and such"? It really is like that, but the courts have been sluggish to understand technology, even more sluggish than law enforcement.
Just because the technology functions differently in some way doesn't really change the nature of how it works, and there are some laws/precedents that have been technology neutral (like some wiretap laws).
|
On July 16 2014 09:17 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 09:06 farvacola wrote: It is precisely the lack of a concrete judicial position on the nature of Internet privacy that tacitly allows the executive to sweep up data like a vacuum. So why did you make me run around with "it's not just handing somebody such and such"? It really is like that, but the courts have been sluggish to understand technology, even more sluggish than law enforcement. Just because the technology functions differently in some way doesn't really change the nature of how it works, and there are some laws/precedents that have been technology neutral (like some wiretap laws). The point is that there are a great many people, some of which aren't ignorant of technology and are in places of power, that disagree. I don't think I'm one of them, to be clear.
|
On July 16 2014 09:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 09:11 Nyxisto wrote:On July 16 2014 08:26 farvacola wrote: Just ask yourself this with concepts like chain of custody, informational granularity, and access in mind: what is the difference between sending a bill to a customer via snail mail and doing the same via an email platform? There is no reason to keep these things in mind. Two people want to communicate and they want to do it privately and secretly if they wish, without third party involvement. The governments job is to make sure that people have this right. The governments job is not to erode this right on the basis of semantic nonsense or technicalities. You don't need physicists or cs majors in a debate about privacy rights. If intention were the only thing needed in establishing the privacy of a given piece of correspondence, sending drugs through the mail would be a lot easier.
Here in Germany every piece of correspondence is protected by the so called Briefgeheimnis, which means domestic mail is not going to be scanned, controlled or whatever.That's why people here have a problem with not having the same standards applied to their digital information. I actually thought the US handled it the same way. If that's not the case that's probably even more fucked up and not a valid argument.
"They took our privacy rights for physical communication away, so now what's the problem with doing it on the internet?"
|
On July 16 2014 09:21 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2014 09:17 DoubleReed wrote:On July 16 2014 09:06 farvacola wrote: It is precisely the lack of a concrete judicial position on the nature of Internet privacy that tacitly allows the executive to sweep up data like a vacuum. So why did you make me run around with "it's not just handing somebody such and such"? It really is like that, but the courts have been sluggish to understand technology, even more sluggish than law enforcement. Just because the technology functions differently in some way doesn't really change the nature of how it works, and there are some laws/precedents that have been technology neutral (like some wiretap laws). The point is that there are a great many people, some of which aren't ignorant of technology and are in places of power, that disagree. I don't think I'm one of them, to be clear.
You're not being clear at all. One of the people that disagree or one of the people ignorant of technology? What exactly is your position?
|
|
|
|