FBI Can Demand Consumer Data Without A Warrant

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Remember this guy? It's scary to think that it took him a decade in court to get the information we are seeing here today. :eek:

In a statement on Monday, Merrill revealed the FBI has used its authority to force companies and individuals to turn over complete web browsing history; the IP addresses of everyone a person has corresponded with; online purchase information, and also cell-site location information, which he said can be used to turn a person's phone into a "location tracking device."
 
I guess my question is, what happens when they "force" an individual to "turn over" private info, but that info is locked or encrypted somehow? Via what means are they able to "force" someone to give them that info. It's one thing if it's just a matter of getting a warrant, where they can then make an attempt to access the info even without the owners permission. But what happens when the can't access it without requiring a person person to comply, and the person does not?
 
An NSL isn't used against an individual, it's used against businesses to force them to turn over records on an individual. The entire case in this article is about a guy that ran an ISP who decided to fight an NSL, which is allowed, an NSL can be challenged and he exercised that right.

As for what happens with an individual, it's called "You can't be forced to incriminate yourself" dude. :rolleyes:

Your imagining a problem that doesn't exist cause you are imagining something that applies to apples, being applied to oranges.
 
@Icpiper, GFTO you JTRIG shill, try carrying water FOR the Constitution for a change instead of crapping on the ideals you swore to protect and defend.
 
^lol

Pointing out that someone is under a misconception isn't "shilling" for anyone. That this author encourages and perpetuates these misconceptions is to your benefit, not your harm.

If you think it's in your best interest to whine and complain about something that isn't true be my guest. At least you know someone will offer a little truth that you can hold onto if you decide that it's a more worthwhile use of your time.

At least you can count on my not using some kind of acronym for a personal insult, it's not my style :D
 
An NSL is a records request. In the old days businesses used to ignore them all the time, today the laws have been changed so it's not so easy to ignore these administrative subpoenas. The are not used directly against an individual but at businesses who have records related to an individual. If a business thinks the NSL is wrong they can challenge it. The court that hears the case can amend the NSL or rescind it entirely if they think the whole thing is unwarranted. If there is a Gag Order along with the NSL the issue can still be brought to your lawyer without violating the Gag Order.

In March 2006, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act allowed for judicial review of an NSL. A federal judge could repeal or modify an NSL if the court found the request for information was "unreasonable, oppressive, or otherwise unlawful." The nondisclosure order the government could include in an NSL was also weakened. The court could repeal the nondisclosure order if it found it had been made in bad faith. Other amendments also allowed the recipient of an NSL to inform their attorney about the request and the government had to rely on the courts to enforce compliance with an NSL.
Click to expand...

So that is how it is right now, as honestly as I can convey it.
 
rand4505 said:
@Icpiper, GFTO you JTRIG shill, try carrying water FOR the Constitution for a change instead of crapping on the ideals you swore to protect and defend.
Click to expand...

Except his analysis is correct ... the NSL is certainly a controversial and potentially flawed document but it is has been around for quite awhile ... it just acquired additional focus in the post 9-11 world ... there are clearly times when the government officials have tried to use the document as a fishing tool (since they dropped the request when the company who received it sued them) but like most legal tools it will only be useful (or provide useful information) on an extremely small group of citizens ... realistically the most controversial aspect of the NSL is the gag order since most warrants for information are not protected that way

also, as lcpiper indicated the NSL is always about a request for information on a 3rd party and never on information on the company or the individual who receives an NSL (a request of that sort could only be made under subpoena) ... an NSL still operates under the jurisdiction of the 5th Amendment (it is its exemption from the 1st Amendment that is resulting in most of the court cases)
 
I swear, these guys would have linched me a long time ago if it weren't for our geek layer in residence ;)
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law

Key disclosure laws, also known as mandatory key disclosure, is legislation that requires individuals to surrender cryptographic keys to law enforcement. The purpose is to allow access to material for confiscation or digital forensics purposes and use it either as evidence in a court of law or to enforce national security interests. Similarly, mandatory decryption laws force owners of encrypted data to supply decrypted data to law enforcement.

Nations vary widely in the specifics of how they implement key disclosure laws. Some, such as Australia, give law enforcement wide-ranging power to compel assistance in decrypting data from any party. Some, such as Belgium, concerned with self-incrimination, only allow law enforcement to compel assistance from non-suspects. Some require only specific third parties such as telecommunications carriers, certification providers, or maintainers of encryption services to provide assistance with decryption. In all cases, a warrant is generally required.

United States[edit]

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves, and there is currently no law regarding key disclosure in the United States.[24] However, the federal case In re Boucher may be influential as case law. In this case, a man's laptop was inspected by customs agents and child pornography was discovered. The device was seized and powered-down, at which point disk encryption technology made the evidence unavailable. The judge held that it was a foregone conclusion that the content exists since it had already been seen by the customs agents, Boucher's encryption password "adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information about the existence and location of files that may contain incriminating information."[25][26]

In another case, a district court judge ordered a Colorado woman to decrypt her laptop so prosecutors can use the files against her in a criminal case: "I conclude that the Fifth Amendment is not implicated by requiring production of the unencrypted contents of the Toshiba Satellite M305 laptop computer," Colorado U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn ruled on January 23, 2012.[27] In Commonwealth v. Gelfgatt,[28] the court ordered a suspect to decrypt his computer, citing exception to Fifth Amendment can be invoked because "an act of production does not involve testimonial communication where the facts conveyed already are known to the government...".[29]

However, in United States v. Doe, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled on 24 February 2012 that forcing the decryption of one's laptop violates the Fifth Amendment.[30][31]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation may also issue national security letters that require the disclosure of keys for investigative purposes.[32] One company, Lavabit, chose to shut down rather than surrender its master private keys.

Since the summer of 2015, cases were fought between major tech companies such as Apple over the regulation of encryption with government agencies asking for access to private encrypted information for law enforcement purposes. A technical report was written and published by MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, where Ronald Rivest, an inventor of RSA, and Harold Abelson, a computer science professor at MIT with others, explain the technical difficulties, including security issues that arise from the regulation of encryption or by making a key available to a third party for purposes of decrypting any possible encrypted information. The report lists scenarios and raises questions for policy makers. It also asks for more technical details if the request for regulating encryption is to be pursued further.[33]
Click to expand...
 
whenever i open a thread on a similar topic, it's already shat up by Icpiper who makes up for half the thread.
 
rand4505 said:
@Icpiper, GFTO you JTRIG shill, try carrying water FOR the Constitution for a change instead of crapping on the ideals you swore to protect and defend.
Click to expand...

Wow, someone is a mister grumpy-cakes about laws and isn't a smarty-pants enough to go talk to the people who make them personally. Um, if you're so angry about things, maybe you should get involved in the whole political process thing-y so you can make changes instead of just being an armchair mega-poo in a computer forum.
 
temujin987 said:
whenever i open a thread on a similar topic, it's already shat up by Icpiper who makes up for half the thread.
Click to expand...

A lot of people get a lot of terminology wrong.

In his mind this invalidates any moral objection to the tyranny of our government.
 
NSL's are just a not so clever attempt to circumvent judicial process and get a Warrant. In my mind they are just as illegal today as they were when someone who thought he was clever dreamed them up years ago.

it is shameful that the FBI uses them at all.

The FBI should not be able to compel ANYONE to do ANYTHING without judicial oversight in the form of a warrant, properly signed by a judge.

This is big brother, and it must stop, no matter the cost.
 
temujin987 said:
whenever i open a thread on a similar topic, it's already shat up by Icpiper who makes up for half the thread.
Click to expand...

I have never once commented in a thread "opened" by you sir. I only comment in threads opened by the News Staff, mostly it's Steve.
 
IMHO any collection of data - meta or content - , on any private citizen or non-governmental organization, foreign or domestic, no matter where they are in the world should require a warrant listing each individual covered, and the exact data sought by name without any exceptions ever.

It might slow down investigators and that is OK. Living in a free society has always had its risks of those who would do us harm, taking advantage of our freedoms in order to do so. We can not throw out our ideals and values and allow a surveillance state under any circumstance.

I'd take a 9-11 style attack every year if I had to before giving up even an ounce of civil liberties including first amendment and privacy protections. We are all so fond of saying 'freedom isn't free" when talking about our military. It's time we live it in all other aspects of our lives as well.

We should also apply these protections not just to our own citizens, but to any person, anywhere in the world.

Let's stand strong on our ideals of being a free nation, and not let some vile terrorists scare us into becoming a police state.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
A lot of people get a lot of terminology wrong.

In his mind this invalidates any moral objection to the tyranny of our government.
Click to expand...

I challenge your perception that the government is tyrannical to begin with.

Your perception, (if I have this incorrect please forgive me, it's just the impression I have), is that individual instances of the government "going too far" are proof of evil intent. My perception on the other hand is that our system of government allows for correction and modification, that as long as excesses encourage correction and correction can take place, that the system is sound. That the system is not absolute and perfect at all times is only a sign that it is in fact flexible enough to weather change and last.

What that means in the short term is that every now and then someone is going to get screwed, but that it will lead to change and improvement.

I call this very topic as proof. In the ten years or so since Mr. Merrill filed his case, challenging the gag order, associated with a NSL that was served on his ISP, the laws relevant to this case were changed two times, his case was sent back to court under the new laws, and in the end his challenge was upheld.

Mr. Merrill's case prompted changes in the laws that eventually supported the legitimacy of his challenge and the overturning of the gag order.

For me this is a sign that things work. But from my impression, you only see this as proof the government is up to no good all the time. The simple fact that it's the government that makes the laws mean it can only be the government that oversteps. I can't go too far and you can't go too far because we don't write law. All we can do is stand up for ourselves when we think the government has got something wrong. Mr. Merrill did it, many others have before him.

This is just how I see it.
 
lcpiper said:
I challenge your perception that the government is tyrannical to begin with.

Your perception, (if I have this incorrect please forgive me, it's just the impression I have), is that individual instances of the government "going too far" are proof of evil intent. My perception on the other hand is that our system of government allows for correction and modification, that as long as excesses encourage correction and correction can take place, that the system is sound. That the system is not absolute and perfect at all times is only a sign that it is in fact flexible enough to weather change and last.

What that means in the short term is that every now and then someone is going to get screwed, but that it will lead to change and improvement.

I call this very topic as proof. In the ten years or so since Mr. Merrill filed his case, challenging the gag order, associated with a NSL that was served on his ISP, the laws relevant to this case were changed two times, his case was sent back to court under the new laws, and in the end his challenge was upheld.

Mr. Merrill's case prompted changes in the laws that eventually supported the legitimacy of his challenge and the overturning of the gag order.

For me this is a sign that things work. But from my impression, you only see this as proof the government is up to no good all the time. The simple fact that it's the government that makes the laws mean it can only be the government that oversteps. I can't go too far and you can't go too far because we don't write law. All we can do is stand up for ourselves when we think the government has got something wrong. Mr. Merrill did it, many others have before him.

This is just how I see it.
Click to expand...

I'm not really using this specific example as my only basis of opinion that the government is evil. Pretty much look at the history of the last century, that is more than enough.

It is nice that the government occasionally pretends to give a shit when it is called on the carpet, I guess.
 
lcpiper said:
Freedom of choice? That's a new one, not sure I see it in the Bill of Rights anywhere myself.
Click to expand...

Your lack of caring about peoples freedom/right to choose because you don't see it written down anywhere is really all that needs to be said about you specifically. You're apart of the growing problem in the world. Which is why a lot of people here feel the way they do about you. You laugh about it and that's quite typical when delusional.
 
Zarathustra[H];1042004086 said:
IMHO any collection of data - meta or content - , on any private citizen or non-governmental organization, foreign or domestic, no matter where they are in the world should require a warrant listing each individual covered, and the exact data sought by name without any exceptions ever.

It might slow down investigators and that is OK. Living in a free society has always had its risks of those who would do us harm, taking advantage of our freedoms in order to do so. We can not throw out our ideals and values and allow a surveillance state under any circumstance.

I'd take a 9-11 style attack every year if I had to before giving up even an ounce of civil liberties including first amendment and privacy protections. We are all so fond of saying 'freedom isn't free" when talking about our military. It's time we live it in all other aspects of our lives as well.

We should also apply these protections not just to our own citizens, but to any person, anywhere in the world.

Let's stand strong on our ideals of being a free nation, and not let some vile terrorists scare us into becoming a police state.
Click to expand...


Here's the problem Z, the Intelligence organizations are not law enforcement, they don't do investigations. Law Enforcement does investigations where people are found guilty and innocent. Intelligence Organizations gather information so that in peacetime our leaders can make decisions and our military can remain prepared, and in wartime so they can fight and win.

Any view point that can't separate the two is flawed and unrealistic. There is a need for this. There is a very good case to argue that the successes of US Intelligence Organizations were greatly responsible for NATO being able to keep the Warsaw Pact at bay and prevented so very nasty warfare in Europe and eventually the Pact's disintegration. The lives they most likely saved number in the billions. But you make no allowance for this at all.

As far back as the early 60s the NSA collected the content of every overseas phone call made by anyone, it's still that way today for land line calls. Somehow for more then 50 years we avoided absolute tyranny despite this. A reporter could have described this two ways, He could say that the calls were collected because they were calls that involved foreigners, and a reporter could have said something like "the NSA collects the content of phone calls on millions of Americans". Both statements are technically true but only one gives an accurate picture of the truth.

As far as your willingness to accept a 9/11 attack every year, that's your opinion, but can you say that's everyone's opinion? Do you think this is the opinion of the family members who lost loved ones in the attack? Do you think they share your views?
 
lcpiper said:
Here's the problem Z, the Intelligence organizations are not law enforcement, they don't do investigations. Law Enforcement does investigations where people are found guilty and innocent. Intelligence Organizations gather information so that in peacetime our leaders can make decisions and our military can remain prepared, and in wartime so they can fight and win.

Any view point that can't separate the two is flawed and unrealistic. There is a need for this.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so instead of being found guilty or innocent, you can spend 15 years in Guantanamo Bay without ever being charged with a crime?

I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but in the real world it has consequences like the above which are totally unacceptable.


lcpiper said:
There is a very good case to argue that the successes of US Intelligence Organizations were greatly responsible for NATO being able to keep the Warsaw Pact at bay and prevented so very nasty warfare in Europe and eventually the Pact's disintegration. The lives they most likely saved number in the billions. But you make no allowance for this at all.
Click to expand...

No, the soviet bloc did not fall apart because of our intelligence efforts, nor did it fall apart due to the direct failing of a central planned economy under communism (though this certainly didn't help either).

The soviet bloc fell apart almost entirely because of one thing. An average oil price of $80+ followed by an average oil price in the low $20's in the late 80's. The soviet economy had (much like the Russian economy today) over-focused on oil, and could not survive the price drop due to lack of diversification.

As far as maintaining the peace between the Warsaw pact and the West during the post war period goes, I credit the threat of mutually assured destruction much more than I do the intelligence community.

lcpiper said:
As far as your willingness to accept a 9/11 attack every year, that's your opinion, but can you say that's everyone's opinion? Do you think this is the opinion of the family members who lost loved ones in the attack? Do you think they share your views?
Click to expand...

I can't speak for all the people who lost loved ones in 2001, but I can say a few things.

1.) The push for giving up liberties for security after 9/11 tends to come from the political right in this country, mostly voted into office by people who don't live in New York, where most of the victims were. Generally in New York people tend to be more opposed to sacrificing our liberties for security.

In a way, it's like the geographical regions that tend to vote the political right into office are using SOMEONE ELSE'S tragedy to drive a police state agenda into force.

2.) Opinion whether it is right or wrong to trade our liberties for security really doesn't matter. These liberties are written into our constitution, and any attempts to circumvent them by government leaders are really more mental gymnastics than anything else.

Even in the Roman empire its citizens had the right to due process. Certainly we are more enlightened than ancient Rome?
 
xJ321x said:
Your lack of caring about peoples freedom/right to choose because you don't see it written down anywhere is really all that needs to be said about you specifically. You're apart of the growing problem in the world. Which is why a lot of people here feel the way they do about you. You laugh about it and that's quite typical when delusional.
Click to expand...

You posted the fucking smiley face, I was just reciprocating a light hearted comment. Now you want to be a nasty ass.

Here is what I know. I know you don't have a god damned clue how much I care about our people's freedom. You are one of these clueless asses that think I signed up and spent 16 years in the Army because of all the great benefits. News Flash, I made less then minimum wage when I enlisted and when my wife had kids we were on the WIK program because of our low income. That's Women, Infants, and Kids, it helped with diapers and formula. You want to cry about your freedoms, what freedoms do you think I had back in the early 80's, I guarantee it was nothing like soldiers have today. Back then I could have been disciplined for getting a sunburn, ask any older soldier he'll confirm it. My wife and I had to wait seven months for the Army to give us permission to get married. My first kid was late being born, I missed it by one day because my Commander wouldn't allow me to just wait for the kid. I'm a contractor today because no matter how much my wife wants me to curl up in a government security blanked job I refuse to submit any more to the government telling me what I can and can't do with my life.

But you don't know anything about that do you? You've never been a part of that have you? You're one of these idiots that thinks all the USA ever does is run around the world trampling on everyone and pushing everyone around with our Military. Young people who have never served and never been anywhere in the world and seen it with their own eyes love to run things down that they haven't the first clue about. So god damned smart you are.

I challenge you to look up some images of Seoul Korea and see for yourself what was left after years of War, and what that country is today only 60 years later. That's 60 years of the US working with and helping the South Koreans rebuild a country that was truly devastated in the early 50s. And it wasn't just the 4 years of the Korean War, that followed 35 years of Japanese Occupation.

Sixty years ago this;
Seoul.jpg



Was this;
77688-004-281C58E5.jpg



My mother-in-law lost a kid in a miscarriage crossing one of those bridges over the Han river as they blew it up to keep the Chinese from crossing it.

Don't try to tell me I don't value freedom when You have never lived a day of your life without it.
 
Zarathustra[H];1042004258 said:
Yeah, so instead of being found guilty or innocent, you can spend 15 years in Guantanamo Bay without ever being charged with a crime?

I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but in the real world it has consequences like the above which are totally unacceptable.




No, the soviet bloc did not fall apart because of our intelligence efforts, nor did it fall apart due to the direct failing of a central planned economy under communism (though this certainly didn't help either).

The soviet bloc fell apart almost entirely because of one thing. An average oil price of $80+ followed by an average oil price in the low $20's in the late 80's. The soviet economy had (much like the Russian economy today) over-focused on oil, and could not survive the price drop due to lack of diversification.

As far as maintaining the peace between the Warsaw pact and the West during the post war period goes, I credit the threat of mutually assured destruction much more than I do the intelligence community.



I can't speak for all the people who lost loved ones in 2001, but I can say a few things.

1.) The push for giving up liberties for security after 9/11 tends to come from the political right in this country, mostly voted into office by people who don't live in New York, where most of the victims were. Generally in New York people tend to be more opposed to sacrificing our liberties for security.

In a way, it's like the geographical regions that tend to vote the political right into office are using SOMEONE ELSE'S tragedy to drive a police state agenda into force.

2.) Opinion whether it is right or wrong to trade our liberties for security really doesn't matter. These liberties are written into our constitution, and any attempts to circumvent them by government leaders are really more mental gymnastics than anything else.

Even in the Roman empire its citizens had the right to due process. Certainly we are more enlightened than ancient Rome?
Click to expand...

Z, a prisoner of war isn't a criminal, he's an enemy. A prisoner of war stays a captor until the war is over because he is an enemy. You don't try them, you don't convict them, you just hold them so they can't do additional harm. We held German and Japanese prisoners during WW2, we held Germans in WW1, We held Iraqi's during the first Gulf War and Chinese and North Koreans during the Korean war. We kept them until the conflict was over. It's not law enforcement it's warfare. Don't get them confused.
 
I'd take a 9-11 style attack every year if I had to before giving up even an ounce of civil liberties including first amendment and privacy protections.
Click to expand...

No. It's your kind that deserve 0 civil liberties.

Damn extremists.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
this
hqdefault.jpg


used to be this
635743774771508291-AP-Travel-Trip-Hiroshima-Anniversary.jpg
Click to expand...

Not sure what your argument is there ... you seem to be demonstrating how benevolent and forgiving our government is since we helped an enemy who launched a sneak attack on us in a time of peace and killed hundreds of thousands of our soldiers throughout the war to rebuild themselves into a robust and peaceful partner ... that seems to show our government is good and not evil
 
Oh, And Z, you completely ignore decades of positioning and conflict, each side looking for an advantage that would allow the Soviets to launch an attack on Western Europe that would result in a victory. When I was in, before the Wall fell, the estimates were two weeks from start to finish if they attacked. The only thing that kept them back for awhile were the Strategic Nucs. Then they reached parity in Strategic Nucs and we had MAD so then the board was reset. Neither side could use Strategic Nucs without the other doing the same so the pressure was back at the tactical level. The Soviets began training in live chemical warfare environments and intended to use chemical weapons to break through NATOs defenses. We countered with Tactical Nucs and started shipping over low yield Tac Nucs. If the Soviets massed their military strength in order to achieve breakthroughs we would Nuc those troops concentrations. A new stalemate.

Over and over again Intelligence operations of all types helped us identify new threats and accurately figure out how the Soviets were trying to gain an edge that would allow them to successfully conquer Europe. The French became so sure it would go to the Russians that they started leaning toward them trying to make it look like they weren't Russia's enemy and wouldn't fight them if they came across West Germany.

So yes, economic ruin is what ended the Soviet Union, but it was Military Strength and Intelligence Operations that gave Europe the time for that collapse to happen.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
I'm not really using this specific example as my only basis of opinion that the government is evil. Pretty much look at the history of the last century, that is more than enough.

It is nice that the government occasionally pretends to give a shit when it is called on the carpet, I guess.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of evil? Our government has certainly made mistakes (all governments do). Some of those mistakes are evil in nature (McCarthy trials, Segregation, Internment Camps, etc). But Americans born in the USA have never experienced one of the truly evil governments in the last century (Fascist Italy, Fascist Germany, Militarist Japan, Communist Dictatorships, etc) ... if you consider the USA to be equivalent to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union or Maoist China or Pol Pot Cambodia you REALLY need to reexamine your criteria
 
Zarathustra[H];1042004258 said:
Even in the Roman empire its citizens had the right to due process. Certainly we are more enlightened than ancient Rome?
Click to expand...

And this article that we have been discussing is a perfect example of exactly that is it not?

At least we were having a discussion until someone, (not you Z), decided to start making it personal.
 
kbrickley said:
Not sure what your argument is there ... you seem to be demonstrating how benevolent and forgiving our government is since we helped an enemy who launched a sneak attack on us in a time of peace and killed hundreds of thousands of our soldiers throughout the war to rebuild themselves into a robust and peaceful partner ... that seems to show our government is good and not evil
Click to expand...

my point was pictures are stupid and no government is innocent.
 
kbrickley said:
What is your definition of evil? Our government has certainly made mistakes (all governments do). Some of those mistakes are evil in nature (McCarthy trials, Segregation, Internment Camps, etc). But Americans born in the USA have never experienced one of the truly evil governments in the last century (Fascist Italy, Fascist Germany, Militarist Japan, Communist Dictatorships, etc) ... if you consider the USA to be equivalent to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Soviet Union or Maoist China or Pol Pot Cambodia you REALLY need to reexamine your criteria
Click to expand...

Killing people that did not take aggression against you, I would say is an evil move.
Sometimes it is to stop them from killing others. But usually it is politics.

I could list at least 20 or thirty brutal killers the US has supported.

And in no way am I giving out equivalency statements, other than all governments mentioned here are evil.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
my point was pictures are stupid and no government is innocent.
Click to expand...

One could argue that no government is completely evil either ... there were probably moments in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia where they did good ... Is the USA government perfect (certainly not) ... is it better than the majority of other governments in the world (likely) ... as the old saying goes, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" and although our democracy has its flaws we are definitely a democracy
 
lcpiper said:
As for what happens with an individual, it's called "You can't be forced to incriminate yourself" dude. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yet, you have the government trying to force back doors into encryption methods. Luckily, my state representatives are huge on privacy of citizens (Jeff Merkley & Ron Wyden).
If people can't be forced to incriminate yourself, we'll find a way to do it for you.".

There was a recent poll showing 19% of people trust the US government right now. That's low. Right now, they should be doing things to increase trust, not erode it even further. I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, as it technically is legit and legal, but I disagree with the laws that you're defending. As do a lot of American citizens. Whether it's for the safety and security of the country is debatable both ways. I think most people on this forum see the opposite side of what you're on.
 
kbrickley said:
One could argue that no government is completely evil either ... there were probably moments in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia where they did good ... Is the USA government perfect (certainly not) ... is it better than the majority of other governments in the world (likely) ... as the old saying goes, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" and although our democracy has its flaws we are definitely a democracy
Click to expand...

I used to believe this, actually.

Those days are not coming back.
 
Is it not a fair statement to claim that the founding fathers believed that abuse and even tyranny were par for the course for any government and that is why they built the protections that judicial mechanisms so that we would maintain the ability to correct things when they start going wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top