Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the when-you-walk-through-the-garden dept
There were some high-scoring comments on the insightful side this week, and they all came in response to the same thing: law enforcement freaking out about smartphone encryption. Out in the lead we have BentFranklin with a quotable response to such complaints:
Police who say they can’t do their jobs without violating the constitution are saying they can’t do their jobs.
Trailing by just a few votes on the insightful side, but also racking up enough funny votes to win first place on that side of things, we’ve got John Fenderson with a little bit of perspective:
Have we all forgotten those dark ages?
Remember those dark days before smartphones existed? How could we forget those terrible times when no crimes could be solved because there were no smartphones to be searched?
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ll start out with one more comment from that post. Tomczerniawski served up an excellent response to anyone who tries to justify the curtailment of civil rights with a plea of “Won’t somebody please think of the children?”:
I have. I’d rather they not grow up in a totalitarian, authoritarian dictatorship.
Next, we’ve got an excellent comment discussing the broader topic of government secrecy and classified information. Sometimes, the push for transparency can be painted as naive — as though its proponents don’t understand the need for secrecy in the face of very real threats. JP Jones does an excellent job of dispelling this straw man and delineating the differences between acceptable and unacceptable secrecy:
No, we don’t need to know details. What you’re talking about is called Operational Security (OPSEC). OPSEC relates to very specific things.
Here’s an example. If I post on Facebook that I’m getting deployed to Afghanistan, that’s not a violation of OPSEC. There are plenty of unclassified channels where an enemy could learn that information. Now, if I said I’m deploying on X date on Y flight with Z number of people, that’s where the problem comes in.
The vast majority of classified information involves specifics of known information. For example, it’s not classified that we have electronic warfare devices that are used to remotely explode IEDs using frequency jamming. You can read about it on Wikipedia. The exact effective radius of devices currently in use on military vehicles, however, is classified.
The issue people have with transparency is that we’re hiding general information, not because knowledge of it would allow the enemy to counteract it, but because if people knew about it they would not approve of it. That is an illegal reason to classify government information. So when we find out that the government is doing it on a massive scale, and actively trying to surpress that information, not because it would aid the enemy, but because the American people would not approve, we’re a little upset.
I don’t need to know the effective range of our counter-IED vehicles, and I don’t need to know the 10 digit grid of our nuclear submarines, and I don’t need to know the names of our operatives in Iran. I do need to know when my government is torturing people, spying on citizens not suspected of any crime, and in general abusing its power.
The fact is that terrorists already assumed we had the capability to track their communications. Our military does this regularly; it’s why we use callsigns on encrypted radio communications. We don’t know if the enemy has broken our encryption, but if they have, we’re not going to make it easy for them to find out more. Extremist organizations would have to be insane to operate under the assumption that their electronic communications were perfectly safe.
So who’s really upset about the whole thing? The American population. Did this hurt the U.S. reputation? Certainly. But that’s because it’s bad, and because we shouldn’t have been doing it, which is not a reason to classify information.
There isn’t a problem with secrecy. There’s a problem with illegal and immoral behavior being allowed because we’re too afraid of the terrorist threat to challenge our own government.
Over on the funny side, we’ve already had our first place comment from John, so let’s move on to number two. When we mocked a report about textbook piracy for calling Herodotus’ Histories a “textbook” and acting surprised that it was available for free, it being an extremely public domain work, Vidiot said not so fast:
None of this public domain nonsense, now…
Herodotus may have published in 440 BC, but his heirs have been closely following the adventures of the Conan Doyle estate. And they’re talking subpoenas.
For editor’s choice, we’ve got a couple quick hits from other posts. First up is Stan, who was curious after hearing the NSA mention “Constitution Day”:
Does Constitution Day at the NSA involve shredders or incinerators?
Last but not least, it’s mmrtnt suggesting that the total lack of Jimi Hendrix music in an upcoming Jimi Hendrix biopic perhaps calls for the redefinition of a common term:
Wow
Talk about a spoiler…
That’s all for this week, folks!
Comments on “Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt”
The Constitution
Basically I think the constitution should be re-written from scratch. By the public. Crowdsourced. The current one isn’t bad, not in the least, but I think it needs a massive update. The old one would be the basis for the new one. Why do I suggest this? Because times have changed since it was written over 200 years ago.
As a counter-suggestion, maybe not re-write the whole thing but get every point clarified. Again, crowdsourcing it.
Re: The Constitution
Oh yea, rewriting it will work out so well, not!
Name one thing that needs “updated” because “times have changed”
Re: Re: The Constitution
Well, it’s not an update, so much as an addition, but here’s something I’d love to see added.
“No law, or interpretation of a law, shall be considered legal unless it is proposed, discussed, and voted into law in a public forum open to observation from the general citizenry, with the final text of the law or interpretation to be made publicly available in it’s entirely.
Those found guilty of violating this amendment shall be considered to have committed a felony, with a minimum sentence of ten years in prison. In addition, they shall be barred from ever running for, or serving in, any public office for the rest of their life.”
Re: Re: Re: The Constitution
“”No law, or interpretation of a law, shall be considered legal…”
Actually no “law” is lawful (legal) here in the USA UNLESS it is in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution. Just because a person who serves within our government says it is a “law” does not make it so – and it matters not what branch it is.
The US Constitution and all in Pursuance thereof it is supreme, not those who serve within the federal government. Their actions are ONLY supreme IF they are doing their duty as the US Constitution assigned it, and doing it in a constitutional manner.
Make sense now?
Re: Re: Re:2 The Constitution
“Actually no “law” is lawful (legal) here in the USA UNLESS it is in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution”
The issue is that this would have to be determined in a court, and courts aren’t likely to take the issue up until the law is already passed. Between those two events (the law being passed and the court ruling on it), the law is assumed to be valid and is in full effect.
Re: Re: The Constitution
The Bill of Rights could use some updating. Mostly to slap some old men and women wearing robes in DC that think “computers” make everything different.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t really make sense today and should be replaced with something that prevents the government from outlawing anything it uses domestically. It would be a little bit complicated, because it would have to allow for regional things and it should allow for hunting in rural areas.
There should also be an amendment that makes it a capital offense for a government agent to commit perjury or fail to prosecute perjury. Government agents should also be held to a higher standard and assumed to be less credible than non-government agents. Government agent would have to be defined to include contractors, local, police, and even agents of foreign governments acting on behest of our government.
We need to encode the FOI act into the constitution, complete with penalties for failure to comply.
The concept of sovereign immunity needs to be curtailed if not completely eliminated.
A right to privacy should be explicitly included and the third party doctrine should be explicitly eliminated.
There is likely more, but that covers quite a bit.
Re: Re: Re: The Constitution
“The Bill of Rights could use some updating. Mostly to slap some old men and women wearing robes in DC that think “computers” make everything different.
The 2nd amendment doesn’t really make sense today and should be replaced with something that prevents the government from outlawing anything it uses domestically. It would be a little bit complicated, because it would have to allow for regional things and it should allow for hunting in rural areas.”
Actually it makes more sense today then ever. Read it, Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The problem is that you bought into the “new” interpretation of it which is incorrect (and NO, judges are not to “interpret” the US Constitution, but to see that it is followed.
It says that the Militia of the several states (that is us, “We the people”) are necessary for freedom. Since the people are the Militia and might be needed at any time, they can and must bear arms.
George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
Why? Because those who serve within governments love power and always want more. Look at Obama, he gave himself First Degree Murder powers – assassination powers. Can he do that lawfully? NO! Shocked him as much as it did constitutionalists that the people were dumbed down enough to allow it.
Thomas Jefferson: “The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with arms usual in the regular service.”
Joel Barlow said of the US Constitution: “… not only permitting every man to arm, but obliging him to arm.”
Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment: “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
It has little to do with hunting, what it has to do with is:
– Enforcing the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
– Enforcing and keeping the “Laws of the Union” (which is constitutional laws ONLY),
– Protecting the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
– “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.
Who did you expect to “police” those who serve within our governments and the law enforcement? Themselves. Like that ever works. It is OUR duty, “We the People” read the preamble(s) again – if they allowed it they are here in another comment.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Constitution
“and NO, judges are not to “interpret” the US Constitution, but to see that it is followed.”
However, in order to see that it is followed, the Constitution must be interpreted in order to know what it is that must be followed.
Re: Re: Re:3 The Constitution
Which should be carried out using a dictionary from the time it was written, and not a modern dictionary, otherwise is is too easy to change the intent of the words, i.e. press meaning printing press and not a new operation.
Re: Re: Re:4 The Constitution
Yes, understanding the language it’s written in is critical. But the problem goes beyond simply language. The issue is that many constitutional provisions (especially the Bill of Rights) are at odds with each other. That makes it impossible to just follow things exactly as they’re written.
Also, and this is a problem with language, but of a different sort, there are sections of the Constitution that are poorly worded and thus are ambiguous. The second amendment is perhaps the most obvious example of this: does it enshrine the right for individuals to own guns without substantial regulation into the constitution? From how it’s worded, it’s hard to tell. Equally reasonable and coherent arguments can be made for answering both “yes’ and “no”.
Re: Re: Re:2 The Constitution
Obviously you are a paid NRA shill who just saw second amendment and cut and paste a knee jerk reaction.
If you bothered to read and understand what I suggested, you would see it actually provides far more freedoms than the current 2nd amendment. Basically it would say, if the government, i.e. police, get to have guns, then so do the people. If the government can have armored vehicles, than so can the public. Body armor, ditto. It would also apply to encryption, computers, communications, and so own.
Re: The Constitution
This comment tells me that you do not know much beyond what you are told by propagandist about the US Constitution. If you want some really decent summaries on it may I recommend the Preambles:
Preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Notice who it says does created it and why, “We the People of the United States”. The idea was to create “a more perfect Union” by having the people take responsibility to hold accountable those who serve within our governments for the contract they agreed to and the PERSONAL guarantee that they will “Support and Defend it”, except all who serve as US presidents who give their personal guarantee that they will Preserve, Protect and Defend” – all are required to follow it.
What are the PEOPLE responsible for doing, and using the TOOLS of government to do it/them?
1) Establish Justice,
2) Iinsure domestic Tranquility,
3) Provide for the common defence,
4) Promote the general Welfare, and
5) Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Notice no where did it say that those who serve in ANY branch of our government are to do those things, but “We the people” are to do them.
Preamble to the Bill of Rights: “Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
What does the Bill of Rights do?
It protects our natural rights from those who serve within government. They are forbidden to do anything against the people EXCEPT in the manner described within the Bill of Rights or not at all. “… in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added…”
Notice the words “FURTHER” and “ADDED”. They are saying that MORE restrictions were put on those who serve within the US government.
Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
What does this say? How does it say it? It says that there can be NO LAW made restricting in any way those things listed – EVER, for any reason. That there is/are no such thing as “emergency powers” or “martial law” because they are the exact OPPOSITE of the US Constitution.
That those are unlawful here and actually terrorism against the US people (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”).
The Supreme Court of the United States, 1866 – yes it IS valid, more valid then those serving today: “The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, EQUALLY in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its PROTECTION ALL CLASSES OF MEN, AT ALL TIMES, AND UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. NO DOCTRINE INVOLVING MORE PERNICIOUS CONSEQUENCES WAS EVER INVENTED BY THE WIT OF MAN THAT THAT ANY OF ITS PROVISIONS CAN BE SUSPENDED DURING ANY OF THE GREAT EXIGENCIES OF GOVERNMENT. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism.”
James Madison: “Because if . . . [An Unalienable Natural Right of Free Men] . . . be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: It is limited with regard to the coordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires, not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained: but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the greater Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The people who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are Slaves.”
Judge Thomas M. Cooley: “Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it. . . To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does or does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume.”
Dr. Edwin Vieira: “This has nothing to do with personalities or subjective ideas. It’s a matter of what the Constitution provides… The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights.
The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.
… the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability…” (End Dr. Vieira quote)
Thomas Jefferson: “The government created by this compact (the Constitution) was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people of each state) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
Patrick Henry: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
Cockrum v. State: “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. HE DOES NOT DERIVE IT FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT. IT IS ONE OF THE HIGH POWERS DELEGATED DIRECTLY TO THE CITIZENS, AND IS EXCEPTED OUT OF THE GENERAL POWERS OF GOVERNMENT. A LAW CANNOT BE PASSED TO INFRINGE UPON IT OR IMPAIR IT, BECAUSE IT IS ABOVE THE LAW, AND INDEPENDENT OF THE LAW MAKING POWER”
As I said, the problem is NOT the US Constitution, it is the deliberate “dumbing down” of Americans. If you read that you probably have a new idea of what the US Constitution means.
The First Amendment does not give us any rights, it PROTECTS them. The amendment is comprised of six limitations put on the government. It merely states what the government cannot do, and thus protects citizens rights from government infringement.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The six protections against government encroachment within the First Amendment are:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to
assemble
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the government for a
redress of grievance.
Fourth Amendment: “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.”
There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from
unreasonable searches and seizure. In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first
getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause. Thisis only as valid if the judge is honest. There have been cases in which judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant.
This amendment (none of the Bill of Rights does) does NOT “grant” the people any Rights, but instead a limits or forbids those who serve within our government to ensure that they do not trespass beyond the listed powers assigned to them by the US Constitution.
A few more;
The First Amendment does not give us any rights, it PROTECTS them. The amendment is comprised of six limitations put on the government. It merely states what the government cannot do, and thus protects citizens rights from government infringement.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The six protections against government encroachment within the First Amendment are:
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
2. Congress shall make no law prohibiting the exercise of religion
3. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech
4. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press
5. Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peacefully to assemble
6. Congress shall make no law abridging the right to petition the government for a redress of grievance.
Fourth Amendment: “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.”
There are two governmental limitations stated in this amendment.
1. The citizens are to be secure in their person, home, papers, and property, from unreasonable searches and seizure. In other words they have the privacy to go about their lives without worrying whether the government will invade them. This amendment was to ensure that the government does not trespass on the people nor take anything from the people without following correct legal procedure.
2. The government is restrained from taking either person or property without first getting a warrant, and only after proving probable cause. This is only as valid if the judge is honest. There have been cases in which judges have signed blank warrants, and the details are not filled in until after serving the warrant.
This amendment (none of the Bill of Rights does) does NOT “grant” the people any Rights, but instead a limits or forbids those who serve within our government to ensure that they do not trespass beyond the listed powers assigned to them by the US Constitution.
What If.....?
What if there was a law all those years ago hat prevented large chain stores? For example, there could only be one McDonald’s in the world. Then nobody would have to pay McDonald’s to make the same hamburgers. Anyone could make a Big Mac using the same recipe. But they could not call their burger place McDonald’s. In theory the good Big Mac makers will survive and the crap ones will slowly go out of business. Now apply that to not just McDonald’s but to every Wal-Mart, K-Mart, etc, and imagine what that would be like.
I don’t know what that would be like, whether it’d be good or bad. I just think it’d be a good springboard for discussion.