Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

National Security Letters are now constitutional, judge rules

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • National Security Letters are now constitutional, judge rules

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...constitutional

    Not sure if you guys have been following any of this business about National Security Letters, but I thought I would post this here.

    For those who may be unaware, these National Security Letters are all the rage nowadays. The FBI can get all sorts of information about you from your ISP and others without even requiring a search warrant. As an added bonus feature, your ISP is not allowed to tell you anything about any of this for something like 3 years. If they do it is a violation of Federal law. This is subject to oversight of course, but we all know how much oversight our government gives all of these 3 letter agencies (read: almost none). This is a system which creates conditions which are ripe for abuse. There may have been (IMO, very likely have been) abuses of this already, but because of the gag orders, you won't hear anything about it.

    All in the name of national security, of course. We must keep up the neverending wars in Eastasia and Oceana (a/k/a, the war on terrorism)!

    Anyone out there still think we are living in a free country, komrades?
    "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw




  • #2
    Re: National Security Letters are now constitutional, judge rules

    See I'm a really weird liberal. It probably comes from my conservative background - but I'm pretty hawkish when it comes to International Affairs and National Security. In my opinion the Internet is a public space - what you do there is akin to what you do out in the open, regardless if that computer or tablet or phone is in your house. Purchases are monitor-able in stores so why not online? We use CRT cameras when investigating crimes to pinpoint people's movements so why not monitor people's keystrokes and web habits?

    The biggest problem is that it doesn't require a warrant. That seems to be the biggest issue to me, and I am not okay with this law/practice until that changes.

    The internet isn't a peaceful utopia. Its just a tool and people can misuse it, therefore I think we should be open to observing it.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: National Security Letters are now constitutional, judge rules

      I am interested in this phenomenon and I think it is a blood relative to net neutrality.

      I'd like to go on but I got lunch to make.

      Current ARMA Development Project: No Current Project

      "An infantryman needs a leader to be the standard against which he can judge all soldiers."

      Friend of |TG| Chief

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: National Security Letters are now constitutional, judge rules

        YT, I'm afraid that you've fallen for the FUD (that's Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt; for the uninitiated). As I touched on in other post, each political party / politician have their preferred boogeymen to keep the populace in fear ("crime", "terrorism", the "war on drugs", "pedophiles", "global warming", etc.) but the end result is always "more laws, tax dollars, and intrusive government powers are needed because xyz." This is exactly what The Constitution was designed to prevent (and as a corollary, you should also be immediately suspicious of any politician invoking any of the above mentioned terms).

        I saw a great signature quote on someone in some forum the other day, it said: "if you find yourself being afraid of something, ask yourself: who benefits?"

        The thing about powers extended to the government in times of "war" is that they never really get rescinded when the war ends. And the wars on "terrorism" and "drugs" can just be kept on going indefinitely. Well gosh, isn't that just so convenient (for the government)!

        Dimi, they are related, because what we are talking about here (in reality, when you strip back all the propaganda) are Freedom, Liberty, and control.
        "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw



        Comment


        • #5
          Re: National Security Letters are now constitutional, judge rules

          Choice = Freedom
          It's greater than the first amendment. Within reason of course.

          Current ARMA Development Project: No Current Project

          "An infantryman needs a leader to be the standard against which he can judge all soldiers."

          Friend of |TG| Chief

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: National Security Letters are now constitutional, judge rules

            Originally posted by Randy_Shughart_ClwFL View Post
            YT, I'm afraid that you've fallen for the FUD (that's Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt; for the uninitiated). As I touched on in other post, each political party / politician have their preferred boogeymen to keep the populace in fear ("crime", "terrorism", the "war on drugs", "pedophiles", "global warming", etc.) but the end result is always "more laws, tax dollars, and intrusive government powers are needed because xyz." This is exactly what The Constitution was designed to prevent (and as a corollary, you should also be immediately suspicious of any politician invoking any of the above mentioned terms).
            I do not fear any threat other than Donald Trump becoming President; and I'm pretty sure that is imminent. I'm holding my position because to me the internet is inherently a record keeping place. Its not in my house nor is it on my phone. Its a collection of private entities all connected in a digital public forum. Its akin to my market square, a coffee shop, or a shoe store with the sole exception that every single action is communicated through a platform that can potentially record it. I think we should be allowed to access this information if need be. I just do not like that there is no warrant and judicial oversight.

            I think laws on regulating the markets, on ensuring education is more equitable nationally and not a pot-luck of what school gets more tax dollars, on reigning in abusive industries and promoting transparency.

            To me, as a nihilist, I fear no god and bow to no supreme moral code. Instead I accept the fact that what we are given is chaos and we must make due with that lot. This is why we congregate into units. The state is one such unit and the goal of is to balance that line of chaos and control. In a democratic system this balance favors a more equitable balance for all and this is the mantra I adopt. I do not believe in something called "Absolute Freedom"; there is only distance from oppression. To me Freedom is defined as how much power you have over your oppressors. Mathematically; Freedom = Oppressor's (Nature, Predators, Others Actors) Power - Your Power

            TLDR - I feel that laws aren't inherently evil. They are just tools of society.

            I saw a great signature quote on someone in some forum the other day, it said: "if you find yourself being afraid of something, ask yourself: who benefits?"

            The thing about powers extended to the government in times of "war" is that they never really get rescinded when the war ends. And the wars on "terrorism" and "drugs" can just be kept on going indefinitely. Well gosh, isn't that just so convenient (for the government)!
            Agree wholeheartedly. For me, however, this isn't a drug/crime/terrorism thing. This is all about how I view the internet: its a public connection on a digital basis. Everything is capable of being monitored and recorded and there is literally nothing you can do about it other than accept it.

            So we ban the government from doing it; well our ISPs and Amazon and Google will do it to earn more profit. Now its been monetized and companies that bow EVEN LESS to the people are in control of it. Hackers will do it to extort us. And foreign nations will do it in the normal course of international appendage waving.

            Should there be more transparency? Yes. Should there be some level of accountability to protect the citizenry? Undoubtedly. But pushing it under the rug is not how you do it.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: National Security Letters are now constitutional, judge rules

              Sorry for double posting but https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comm...dvertising_on/ is relevant.

              We need a bill of rights for the Internet. That's it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: National Security Letters are now constitutional, judge rules

                We already have a Bill of Rights though Ytman. It was specifically designed to curtail government abuses such as this. And it is being disregarded, more and more often these days it seems. That is what is so alarming.
                "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw



                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: National Security Letters are now constitutional, judge rules

                  And yes I agree. Warrants are needed and there must be transparency, but the internet isn't the same as just our public spaces and my private property which was the dynamic that existed two hundred and twentyish years ago. Indeed we need new rulings on today's technology to provide the necessary case-law.

                  Sadly, the current interpretation of the law has allowed telecommunication companies ownership over phone records. Therefore, regardless of what we want the Bill of Rights to imply, we are left with the option of continued litigation or a firm legislative push.

                  I think holding the Bill of Rights as the raison d'Ítre for opposition when all rulings have been to the contrary as unhelpful in progressing. Sure it's a trump card, but it hasn't panned out yet, and frankly I do not think our entire judiciary is evil and taking our rights away. Rather, it's better to demand more rights. Besides explicit legislation is 100 times better than judicial interpretation that changes with time ( I'm looking at Brown v. Board of Education).

                  Besides the whole point of the first bill of rights was an acknowledgement that the original draft of the constitution wasn't enough. The fact that they allowed more admendments to be made also meant that they knew their would be need for new rights within the constitution as our society grew.

                  Comment

                  Connect

                  Collapse

                  TeamSpeak 3 Server

                  Collapse

                  Advertisement

                  Collapse

                  Twitter Feed

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X