Wouldn't you be just as pissed at your Reps/Sens if they *never* came home? Their leaving on a Thursday very likely means they are going home to districts to talk to constituents.
Not being in Washington doesn't automatically mean they're on vacation.
The ever increasing haystacks *may* cause needles to be missed - ff they're trying to process the haystacks in real-time. I'm not as convinced they are trying to do that.
The 'haystacks' purpose is to be a time machine so they can go back to last year and figure out who you were talking to then, once they decide 'now' that you're suspicious.
Different purposes. And frankly you can do both at the same time as long as you aren't trying to monitor the haystacks in real time, but use more traditional methods for ongoing investigations.
No, Mike is conflating things (something he usually rails against).
Hayden was talking about asking questions about the meta-data. The President said that after querying the meta-data if they want to actually tap that phone number, then they have to go back and get a warrant.
Hayden wasn't saying that at all.
I'd argue it's bad that they can query the data all they want without oversight, but it isn't content which is what the President was talking about.
""The whole point of the 4th Amendment is that you're not allowed to collect the haystack. You're only supposed to be able to, on narrow circumstances, go looking for the needle with proper oversight."
Citation needed. Do you have any actual analysis, or just more of your trademarked conclusory statements?"
Uh, the 4th Amendment is that citation.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Specifically you have to be SPECIFIC if you want to collect data on someone. Not, collect everything and then be specific about what you ask the collection of data at a later date about last week.
No, this isn't publicly available information. This is your PHONE RECORDS, which until PRISM, etc, needed a valid court order to be disclosed.
Now the 'court order' being used is 'give us all records on everyone'. If that doesn't violate the 4th amendment against unreasonable search, nothing does anymore.
Giving your data to a 3rd party is entirely different than the gov't collecting your data for posterity (whether directly or from said 3rd parties).
While really really dumb, the Court original ruling on lack of standing was the right ruling based on the law.
I don't necessarily understand 'standing' or agree on it's requirement for large issues like this, but that's our legal system as it stands these days.
False comparison. The laws have changed to allow seat belt use to be a primary offense. They haven't been abusing seat belt violations to pull you over (they have numerous ways to do this already). Seat belt use is also better for society, less deaths, less serious injury, less emergency care needed.
Abuse of a system does not mean a system shouldn't be used. It means we should fix the system though the issues with post 9/11 security theater are vast.
#1 - a valid argument...for now. Technology improves and it will be quite possible to take that stray hair from your head and do the same thing before too long.
#2 - Are fingerprints taken during arrest used to match you to unsolved crimes? My assumption is that is the current case. If so, then taking DNA for the same reasons is no different.
#3 - Same argument for #1 applies. You describe 'today' and perhaps that's valid, but it won't be all that long before star trek tricorder type tech IS available and can do what you say is impossible. Basing your objections on the state of tech rather than the actual legal arguments is rather like the Music Industry saying pre-Napster internet sharing wasn't a problem.
I just don't see the issue with checking people who've been arrested against the list of unsolved crimes.
I DO see (and have) a problem with said arrestee's information being stored forever if they're acquitted but the 2 issues are very different.
"considered to be the foremost liberal authority on constitutional law"
I guess I'm happy for his point of view to be put out there, but it seems like somewhat a conflict of interest to be the foremost authority and be specifically partisan.
"law enforcement and governments wont listen to anyone that talks sense"
The people who won't listen are the "ZOMG it's Bieber" public. They don't want to be bothered to even listen let alone vote (US - I believe Aussies are required to vote).
If the public is too much sheep and not enough people actively involved, you only get the truly psychotic in office making the rules. Think about politics in the US. Would *you* want to have your life raked over the coals ever 2/4/6 years? Sane people say no. Only people who have purposely lived a life so devoid of anything interesting can be elected - or people who have actively hidden their true selves from anyone else. Neither are what I'd consider good choices for leadership, yet it's all we get now.
I was going to say that the one possible upside to something like this is more purchasing of US goods. But great example that shows what likely ends up happening instead.
The key point is "The tool is not 'an infringement tool,' it's a creative tool for creating this type of thing"
Software patents and copyright have let people patent digging a hole. Not a particular and specific method for digging a hole, but the digging of a hole itself.
Re:
And I quote:
"Wheeeeeeee" thud
Re:
Wouldn't you be just as pissed at your Reps/Sens if they *never* came home? Their leaving on a Thursday very likely means they are going home to districts to talk to constituents.
Not being in Washington doesn't automatically mean they're on vacation.
Haystacks and other missions
The ever increasing haystacks *may* cause needles to be missed - ff they're trying to process the haystacks in real-time. I'm not as convinced they are trying to do that.
The 'haystacks' purpose is to be a time machine so they can go back to last year and figure out who you were talking to then, once they decide 'now' that you're suspicious.
Different purposes. And frankly you can do both at the same time as long as you aren't trying to monitor the haystacks in real time, but use more traditional methods for ongoing investigations.
Re: So POTUS lied, then?
No, Mike is conflating things (something he usually rails against).
Hayden was talking about asking questions about the meta-data. The President said that after querying the meta-data if they want to actually tap that phone number, then they have to go back and get a warrant.
Hayden wasn't saying that at all.
I'd argue it's bad that they can query the data all they want without oversight, but it isn't content which is what the President was talking about.
At least it isn't content that we know of...yet.
Re:
""The whole point of the 4th Amendment is that you're not allowed to collect the haystack. You're only supposed to be able to, on narrow circumstances, go looking for the needle with proper oversight."
Citation needed. Do you have any actual analysis, or just more of your trademarked conclusory statements?"
Uh, the 4th Amendment is that citation.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Specifically you have to be SPECIFIC if you want to collect data on someone. Not, collect everything and then be specific about what you ask the collection of data at a later date about last week.
Re: It still comes to the same thing
No, this isn't publicly available information. This is your PHONE RECORDS, which until PRISM, etc, needed a valid court order to be disclosed.
Now the 'court order' being used is 'give us all records on everyone'. If that doesn't violate the 4th amendment against unreasonable search, nothing does anymore.
Giving your data to a 3rd party is entirely different than the gov't collecting your data for posterity (whether directly or from said 3rd parties).
Re:
While really really dumb, the Court original ruling on lack of standing was the right ruling based on the law.
I don't necessarily understand 'standing' or agree on it's requirement for large issues like this, but that's our legal system as it stands these days.
Re:
Indeed, the 'national security' card would seem like the first response from the Gov on these documents.
The government sent the evidence to people being surveilled before and they still weren't allowed to use it.
Sad day for the US all around.
Re: Simple
Oh the leaks DO present the "huge, grave damage it does to our intelligence capabilities" Clapper says.
However, since said intelligence capabilities are by any measure unconstitutional it's not a 'bad' thing to damage them as such.
Re:
Well the people who argued AGAINST the PATRIOT Act seem to be pretty well vindicated as having thought about the 'end game'...
Re: How about we allow him to settle?
This. Is. AWESOME!
Re: Re: Re:
Fingerprints are taken to identify you, not to keep on record for all eternity (at least that's the way it used to be).
If you're acquitted or charges are dropped, you shouldn't still be kept in the list of people who've committed crimes.
But checking arrestees against open unsolved crimes is something I don't have a problem with whether via fingerprints or DNA.
Re:
False comparison. The laws have changed to allow seat belt use to be a primary offense. They haven't been abusing seat belt violations to pull you over (they have numerous ways to do this already). Seat belt use is also better for society, less deaths, less serious injury, less emergency care needed.
Abuse of a system does not mean a system shouldn't be used. It means we should fix the system though the issues with post 9/11 security theater are vast.
Re:
#1 - a valid argument...for now. Technology improves and it will be quite possible to take that stray hair from your head and do the same thing before too long.
#2 - Are fingerprints taken during arrest used to match you to unsolved crimes? My assumption is that is the current case. If so, then taking DNA for the same reasons is no different.
#3 - Same argument for #1 applies. You describe 'today' and perhaps that's valid, but it won't be all that long before star trek tricorder type tech IS available and can do what you say is impossible. Basing your objections on the state of tech rather than the actual legal arguments is rather like the Music Industry saying pre-Napster internet sharing wasn't a problem.
I just don't see the issue with checking people who've been arrested against the list of unsolved crimes.
I DO see (and have) a problem with said arrestee's information being stored forever if they're acquitted but the 2 issues are very different.
(untitled comment)
"considered to be the foremost liberal authority on constitutional law"
I guess I'm happy for his point of view to be put out there, but it seems like somewhat a conflict of interest to be the foremost authority and be specifically partisan.
(and I'm extremely liberal myself)
Re:
As a question to illuminati -
Isn't there some uniqueness clause in patents? Such that if someone else develops the same thing completely independently then it's not patentable?
Serious question looking for answers :)
(untitled comment)
"law enforcement and governments wont listen to anyone that talks sense"
The people who won't listen are the "ZOMG it's Bieber" public. They don't want to be bothered to even listen let alone vote (US - I believe Aussies are required to vote).
If the public is too much sheep and not enough people actively involved, you only get the truly psychotic in office making the rules. Think about politics in the US. Would *you* want to have your life raked over the coals ever 2/4/6 years? Sane people say no. Only people who have purposely lived a life so devoid of anything interesting can be elected - or people who have actively hidden their true selves from anyone else. Neither are what I'd consider good choices for leadership, yet it's all we get now.
Re:
I was going to say, how exactly is this not making all telemarking illegal on it's face?
I still seem to get the calls though, even with Do Not Call registered.
Re:
I was going to say that the one possible upside to something like this is more purchasing of US goods. But great example that shows what likely ends up happening instead.
Re:
The key point is "The tool is not 'an infringement tool,' it's a creative tool for creating this type of thing"
Software patents and copyright have let people patent digging a hole. Not a particular and specific method for digging a hole, but the digging of a hole itself.