HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Federal Judge: NSA Mass Surveillance Is Legal
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
DizConnected
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2006
- Messages
- 135
How many people here think this would be lawful if it was Google, Apple, or Microsoft that were doing it and not the NSA? I'm not saying they're not, just saying I think the Government will get away with it for "National Security" where no one else would.
The distinct difference is we agreed to give away our information when we signed up with those corporations. The government is arbitrarily doing it without our consent, big difference. However... whether corporations should be allowed to use everyone's stored metadata for profit or scientific purposes is another debate entirely.
One has an agreement, and the other is against the agreement the government claims to follow, Human Rights and all that jazz. They both suck, but one was given up and one was taken.
That said, they both need to get out of people's lives. I don't really like the whole EULA crap with lawyer speak. That kind of crap needs to be illegal too.
That said, they both need to get out of people's lives. I don't really like the whole EULA crap with lawyer speak. That kind of crap needs to be illegal too.
Hey, man...it's all legal. Anything the president does is now constitutional. Changing law on the fly? No biggie. Executing American citizens? No problem. Giving exemptions to law to cronies and friends and colleagues? Easy peasy.
How ironic that the Constitution is enshrined in the city that uses it as toilet paper.
How ironic that the Constitution is enshrined in the city that uses it as toilet paper.
What's funny is the last judge cited that there was no evidence these collection programs had thwarted any terrorist threat. This judge starts off by doing the usual emotions inducing 9/11 statement and hypothetical that this program MAY have thwarted that.
One of the comments I've read seems kinda plausible. The NSA has apparently been OK with tapping judges .. Wonder if they have something on this guy. Wouldn't put blackmail out of their bag of tricks.
One of the comments I've read seems kinda plausible. The NSA has apparently been OK with tapping judges .. Wonder if they have something on this guy. Wouldn't put blackmail out of their bag of tricks.
The NSA is probably blackmailing him.
Most likely pics of him flashing cub scouts in just his courtroom robe and a powdered wig while screaming "The British are coming!"
Hey you never know, people in power have some crazy ass fetishes a lot of the time because they have the money to do whatever they want.
Most likely pics of him flashing cub scouts in just his courtroom robe and a powdered wig while screaming "The British are coming!"
Hey you never know, people in power have some crazy ass fetishes a lot of the time because they have the money to do whatever they want.
This is the most terrifying prospect of the entire scandal. If they can access this kind of information at the drop of a hat, how far does orchestration through intimidation stretch?
I dont think blackmail; its just another stupid judge not recognizing his own logical fallacy... this will get overturned on appeal (so long as the appeals judge has more than two brain cells to rub together).
The argument is "does the mass collection of this metadata on any single law-abiding citizen infringe on the rights guaranteed to that citizen by the constitution?"; not "does the action the plaintiffs seek negatively impact the NSAs anti-terrorism abilities?".
If the government started going around to all major public places and taking eye scans and hair samples for DNA testing from everyone, they could also argue that this is necessary in order to pick out the murderers and rapists and terrorists among us. The fact that it works has absolutely no relationship to whether or not we *should be* doing it, which is the question at hand. A sitting US Judge doesnt know the difference.
the ACLU also didnt do a great job if they only argued "that the category at issue -- all telephony metadata -- is too broad and contains too much irrelevant information",
instead of arguing "that the category at issue -- all telephony metadata -- necessarily, in the course of collection, violates the 4th amendment protection of nearly every citizen entitled to such protection".
There is so much wrong with so many levels of government today Ill be amazed if We, the USA, will ever be able to dig ourselves out... 16 strait years of failed leadership is tough.
The argument is "does the mass collection of this metadata on any single law-abiding citizen infringe on the rights guaranteed to that citizen by the constitution?"; not "does the action the plaintiffs seek negatively impact the NSAs anti-terrorism abilities?".
If the government started going around to all major public places and taking eye scans and hair samples for DNA testing from everyone, they could also argue that this is necessary in order to pick out the murderers and rapists and terrorists among us. The fact that it works has absolutely no relationship to whether or not we *should be* doing it, which is the question at hand. A sitting US Judge doesnt know the difference.
He is just making the assumption "the NSA should be doing this...", and not even bothering to ask or answer the question of "should the NSA be doing this?".
the ACLU also didnt do a great job if they only argued "that the category at issue -- all telephony metadata -- is too broad and contains too much irrelevant information",
instead of arguing "that the category at issue -- all telephony metadata -- necessarily, in the course of collection, violates the 4th amendment protection of nearly every citizen entitled to such protection".
There is so much wrong with so many levels of government today Ill be amazed if We, the USA, will ever be able to dig ourselves out... 16 strait years of failed leadership is tough.
Basically we in the West need a bit of what Eastern Europe went through in the early 90's.
Many of our political systems are no longer fit for purpose of governing the majority and only serve the needs of a very small minority.
The systems we have don't work and it's only going to get worse.
My thinking has been to get as many people to vote...but the plan is...'vote for the other guy!'
Basically don't vote for the incumbent politician, vote for the alternative. Doesnt matter if they are Republican or Democrat, Labour or Conservative (they all work to the same agenda) but it screws stuff up if its all change at the polls. New alliances have to be made, politicians for life would lose their place, a whole 100% change from top to bottom. It would show that ultimately the future of politicians is still in our hands and not in their paymasters.
Many of our political systems are no longer fit for purpose of governing the majority and only serve the needs of a very small minority.
The systems we have don't work and it's only going to get worse.
My thinking has been to get as many people to vote...but the plan is...'vote for the other guy!'
Basically don't vote for the incumbent politician, vote for the alternative. Doesnt matter if they are Republican or Democrat, Labour or Conservative (they all work to the same agenda) but it screws stuff up if its all change at the polls. New alliances have to be made, politicians for life would lose their place, a whole 100% change from top to bottom. It would show that ultimately the future of politicians is still in our hands and not in their paymasters.
Incredibly difficult due to gerrymandered districts.
Exactly. Even if the Supreme Court says it's illegal, the NSA just will keep doing it and denying it some more. What/who's to stop them?
The People of the US have 400 million guns. Just sayin'.
The Constitution has the second amendment in place "just in case" the government gets too big for it's britches. Just sayin'.
I seriously doubt those 400 million would actually take up their guns over this. First off, they'll probably be viewed at as terrorist, and then the country will follow the news and view them as such. It won't change much of anything until we're all moving giant rocks to build triangular buildings or stuck in a camp waiting to be execute by the hundreds of thousands. (I'm serious btw, considering the growth of the media and population, it's pretty hard to incite a sufficient amount of people to really change the gov't.)
Oh... I'm rusty on my gov't checking system information... what checks the judges? Or is it just the fact that they are appointed by another section of the gov't?
I think there should seriously be a way to overturn a decision or at least make it invalid so it'll have to go through the process again with another judge. And not with the current appeal process. What it may be though, I don't know.
I think there should seriously be a way to overturn a decision or at least make it invalid so it'll have to go through the process again with another judge. And not with the current appeal process. What it may be though, I don't know.
michael.pa2
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,998
The terrorists really don't have to do anything anymore,they've already achieved their goal - they've damaged our way of life,perhaps beyond repair. Our rights have been stripped from us,the country is in economic ruin,and the government is in the hands of power hungry,paranoid,bumbling clowns. I don't see the courts doing anything in this case,when the government can buy or influence judges at their leisure.
Like I said...just sayin...
I have absolutely NO DOUBT that you are correct. Hell, we can't get a lot of them to go to work. We cannot get most Americans to actually Vote. There's no reasonable expectation that they would take up arms to get the government back in check.
This nation is a bunch of pussies who wouldn't stand up for their rights if their lives depended on it. Unfortunately, in a few years if the constant abuses of power continue......their lives might actually depend upon it.
Tell me...when is the last time you heard any news about Iceland? Remember a few years ago when they were at the center of the global economic crisis?
Go read. See what happened.
/hint, they forgave their population's mortgage debts and put many of the responsible bankers behind bars.
Watch:"Forgive & Forget: Iceland's $1.25 billion mortgage write-down to boost recovery" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMgwgEGbBK4
Watch:"Forgive & Forget: Iceland's $1.25 billion mortgage write-down to boost recovery" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMgwgEGbBK4
Here's the legal issue: Under previous SCOTUS rulings, private information can be collected, by the government, if there is "no expectation of privacy" on said information. The example given at the time (mid 70's) is, that if you have a private conversation in a phone booth, and leave the door open, the information in that conversation is deemed public information, as there is no expectation of privacy when leaving the door open.
That's the crux of the matter here: Do individuals have a reasonable expectation that their metadata be kept private?
I'm suspecting, given how users literally hand it over via TOS agreements they don't even bother to read, that the SCOTUS will rule NO, that users do not have a reasonable expectation that information be private, and the program is legal.
That's the crux of the matter here: Do individuals have a reasonable expectation that their metadata be kept private?
I'm suspecting, given how users literally hand it over via TOS agreements they don't even bother to read, that the SCOTUS will rule NO, that users do not have a reasonable expectation that information be private, and the program is legal.
Retronym
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2007
- Messages
- 13,605
i have no doubt the government-appointed judges will shut down this government program
It's never been about terrorists. Never.
Basically the 1%, the corporations, the powers that be have all had their think-tanks run the numbers for the next 50+ years.
Population growth, declining resources, Geo-political instability, declining incomes for the masses etc etc.
The 1% have most of it and they want to keep it. They do not want us to wake up and go "Hey this isn't working for me! I want what you took from me back!"
They will do everything they can to protect it and that means locking us down. As soon as any of us starts to fight back they can locate us and take us out. Dissent will not be tolerated. Toe the line or you will be dealt with.
They are barricading themselves in ready for the long haul. These 'anti-terrorism ' measures are just their early warning systems of control.
That is the unfortunate truth.
To be honest, a long damn time ago. Haven't really heard much on them.
Just watched that video posted below your post and skimmed Wiki on it. Protests and such though the vid didn't really go into that. I'm not really sure that's what would happen in America. It is 2 different populations after all. I just don't see Americans taking up arms until it's already elbow deep in shit.
Really cool, though, to see that atleast somewhere, something decent went on.
temujin987
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,351
that is where the US isn't really a democracy. there are only two political parties and with the "winner takes all" system per state there is no way another party could emerge with significant influence. effectively, the only choice is two sides of the same coin. both parties are funded by corporations which have very similar goals no matter what business they are actually in thus you get similar politics by both parties. choice is an illusion in this system.
I found it funny that the judge who found it illegal was a Bush appointee while the one who found it legal was a Clinton appointee. Considering the Patriot Act was Bush's little baby I would have thought it would have been the other way around.
And then the College vote counts more than your vote.
I was stunned when I heard in the 2008 election the following statement from the commentators -
"There we have the last of the College votes and its for Obama, so that's it Obama is now President! The people's vote will come in a few days but that's irrelevant!"
Simple answer is: NEVER vote for the incumbent. Screw their political affiliation....they are both the same in many regards.
Don't allow people to serve more than ONE term. In out over.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
LOL term limits are worse. Term limits ensure that people who know how to write a law well without unintended consequences due to poor grammar/wording never remain in office.
Nebraska's Child Abandonment law? Written by newb legislators
Nebraska's screwed up employee liability law? Written by newb legislators.
Be careful what you wish for. The one thing worse than corrupt lawmakers? Corrupt lawmakers who don't know how to write laws that say what they're supposed to mean.
My point was twofold:
1. Iceland had a revolution, though apparently not an armed one.
2. The corporate media has kept the fact of this buried.
I personally believe the reason this story has been kept quiet is because they don't want more Western countries doing the same.
Yep. Notice how people stopped talking about term limits a while ago? Because none of these long-term fuckers will ever vote for that. Find every person that's been in office for more than one term, and get them the fuck out.
Oh, by the way, the NSA is opening up packages of electronics that you order and installing backdoors and bugs into them.
Totally constitutional, yo.
Totally constitutional, yo.
Skripka
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2012
- Messages
- 10,791
"National Security".
Federal Judge: One Facet of NSA Mass Surveillance is Legal
We'll just use this one case to make all of America think everything we are doing is legal, while we log your porn searches and database them in Utah.
When a Judge cites 9/11 as justification for further encroaching on our rights, I get the feeling he doesn't belong in the legal profession.
Cite law. That is what this is about. The Rule of Law.
If the law is now optional, then he isn't a Judge. Obama isn't President. Boehner isn't Speaker.
The Constitution is a Social Contract. The LEGAL framework which binds us together. If that is now meaningless, they derive no rights whatsoever from it. And as evidenced by their actions, have resorted to brute force like thugs the world over.
The US Federal Government has become the British Empire we fought a Revolution to get away from. Dare I say it has become worse.
We'll just use this one case to make all of America think everything we are doing is legal, while we log your porn searches and database them in Utah.
When a Judge cites 9/11 as justification for further encroaching on our rights, I get the feeling he doesn't belong in the legal profession.
Cite law. That is what this is about. The Rule of Law.
If the law is now optional, then he isn't a Judge. Obama isn't President. Boehner isn't Speaker.
The Constitution is a Social Contract. The LEGAL framework which binds us together. If that is now meaningless, they derive no rights whatsoever from it. And as evidenced by their actions, have resorted to brute force like thugs the world over.
The US Federal Government has become the British Empire we fought a Revolution to get away from. Dare I say it has become worse.