[HN Gopher] Pentagon surveilling Americans without a warrant, Se...
___________________________________________________________________
Pentagon surveilling Americans without a warrant, Senator Wyden
reveals
Author : jbegley
Score : 400 points
Date : 2021-05-13 18:06 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.vice.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com)
| forgithubs wrote:
| I don't support that kind of surveillance.
|
| That said, are they really in illegality ? Can I buy this type of
| localization data as a private individual ?
|
| If so, then they don't need a warrant, am I right ?
| tclancy wrote:
| There are plenty of things a private citizen can do that a
| government entity cannot.
| anonymousisme wrote:
| What about the practice of letting our five eyes partners collect
| on Americans, and then obtaining the laundered intel products?
| croes wrote:
| That's why all this data collection in the web is a bad idea. Not
| only by FAANG but any developer who helps in creating this data.
| jtdev wrote:
| I think U.S. based developers need to create something akin to
| the CCC in Germany to combat the clear abuse of privacy that
| many developers are now engaging in on a daily basis.
|
| https://www.ccc.de/en/club
|
| I know... the CCC has been the target of infiltration and
| compromise in various ways throughout history, but that's a
| reality of standing up to abusive power.
| croes wrote:
| I would have thought something like that already existed in
| the USA. So there is one point where Germany has a head start
| in IT.
| billytetrud wrote:
| Unsurprising, but still disappointing. Actually I'm glad someone
| is trying to hold them accountable. It seems silly tho that we
| need to pass a law to uphold what's already written into the
| constitution. It highlights that the constitution only has teeth
| in some legal contexts, primarily where a court case is being
| heard on a citizen being prosecuted. Conditionality seems to not
| have any bearing on preventing agencies from violating the
| constitution or stopping them when they're found out, nor
| punishing those responsible for the violation.
| babesh wrote:
| Surveillance is a form of power. Power does not give up power.
|
| Law is enforced via power. When it meets a greater power then
| the law is contravened.
|
| Look at the US and how it broke international law to force a
| plane down that it thought had Snowden.
| edoceo wrote:
| Huh, TIL..
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incide.
| ..
| fanatic2pope wrote:
| Assange deliberately leaking false information is a very
| interesting admission.
| tpmx wrote:
| Given the extreme asshattery history of Assange, it seems
| just as probable that he was mostly trying to get some
| attention with guesses and then later claimed that it was
| a deliberate disinformation campaign.
| TheTester wrote:
| Unless you are quite rich and powerful, saying that what
| Assange has done is mostly "asshattery" is dishonest, yes
| he has had flukes but consider the mental state of
| someone being prosecuted and hunted by the most powerful
| and corrupt people in our planet, mostly what Assange has
| done s good and denying and calling him an asshat is
| dishonest and shows a clear bias on your part
| tpmx wrote:
| _Unless you are quite rich and powerful, saying that what
| Assange has done is mostly "asshattery" is dishonest_
|
| Why do you think it wouldn't be dishonest if I were quite
| "rich and powerful"?
| jhayward wrote:
| > _mostly what Assange has done s good_
|
| No, colluding with the GRU to create false documents
| interfering with the US Presidential election, resulting
| in the disaster that was Trump's election can not, in any
| sense, be called 'good'.
| tpmx wrote:
| For the record: That's not what I wrote about above.
| CrazyPyroLinux wrote:
| More Trump Derangement Syndrome spotted!
| cema wrote:
| Did he really collaborate?
| [deleted]
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| 1000x this. It's so unusual to talk plainly about power, but
| that's really what it's all about.
| splithalf wrote:
| Would you prefer no laws?
|
| Seems we benefit from them no?
| tclancy wrote:
| Not everyone + you is "we". Lots of people are hurt by bad
| laws; your appreciation for your government's laws tends to
| correlate to how much money or clout you have. Mainly
| because it allows you to ignore them.
| Slow_Hand wrote:
| Parent post isn't arguing against the existence of laws.
| They're illustrating that laws have limits and can be
| overcome by entities that wield enough power.
| splithalf wrote:
| Look at the post above yours. Yes, some want to make the
| case that laws on the whole are essentially oppressive.
| Whether of not foucault made that case precisely, or
| whatever, is totally irrelevant if it's what most people
| actual mean, viz that laws are the tools by which the
| powerless are oppressed.
| kmonsen wrote:
| That is one of the largest straw men I have ever seen.
| slibhb wrote:
| Law is primarily about voluntary submission, not power. A law
| that is followed only as long as it is enforced is not much
| of a law and is unlikely to last.
|
| In terms of your broader point, something about restricting
| the authority of a law-giving entity via the law seems
| paradoxical. An example of this paradox is the fact that it's
| difficult to have standing to sue the government over an
| illegal spying program that is classified.
|
| The best we seem to be able to do is the future-government
| holding the past-government accountable.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| > Law is primarily about voluntary submission, not power.
|
| Let me know how that works out for you, k? I can assure you
| that although state power ultimately comes from the people,
| the state most definitely will enforce its laws against
| you, should you break them. That is, unless you're rich and
| powerful enough to afford the best lawyers and a handful of
| legislators.
| shkkmo wrote:
| It may have been a bit overstated, but the core point is
| solid.
|
| One of the main reasons the war on drugs failed is a lack
| of voluntary submission. Pure enforcement, even with the
| progressive strengthing of enforcement powers, was simply
| unable to stop drugs being widely available in the USA.
|
| Our society runs on trust and voluntary submission to the
| rule of law. If either of those went away in a signifant
| fashion, the our legal system and society in general
| would cease to function in it's current form.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Except you have it backwards. The "War on Drugs" came
| about as a way for the state to exert power over youth
| and minorities.
|
| > "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House
| after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black
| people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John
| Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April
| cover story published Tuesday.
|
| > "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't
| make it illegal to be either against the war or black,
| but by getting the public to associate the hippies with
| marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing
| both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,"
| Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid
| their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them
| night after night on the evening news. Did we know we
| were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
|
| https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-
| rich...
|
| From that perspective, the drug war makes perfect sense,
| and was a _spectacular_ success, not in terms of
| submission, but in terms of control.
| anaerobicover wrote:
| The original publication was at Harper's Magazine, not
| CNN, but this infamous quotation has dubious provenance
| and veracity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichm
| an#Drug_war_quote
| slibhb wrote:
| Though you seem to think otherwise, nothing in your post
| contradicts anything I wrote.
| SR2Z wrote:
| The state is rarely capable of enforcing the law on more
| than a small minority of lawbreakers because enforcing
| the law is expensive.
|
| If there's a busy road where people are routinely
| speeding, the state is actually incapable of pulling
| every single speeder over and ticketing them. Instead,
| the state relies on setting reasonable speed limits and
| scaring drivers with the prospect of fines.
|
| This isn't a personal philosophy as much as it is a
| statement of truth: it's really expensive to enforce
| laws.
| alisonkisk wrote:
| We now have speed cameras and semi automatic citations.
| reader_mode wrote:
| >the state is actually incapable of pulling every single
| speeder over and ticketing them.
|
| a) technology exists where you can just record license
| plates and send speeding tickets automatically - which is
| a nice prallel for mass surveilance tech - it makes large
| scale enforcement much cheaper
|
| b) you don't really need to enforce on everyone, a high
| deterrant + random enforcement creates strong incentives
| against doing something (ie. making examples)
| pmiller2 wrote:
| You don't think selective enforcement is about exertion
| of power?
| markus_zhang wrote:
| The real problem is that ordinary people do not have power
| and (secretly) they do not want power.
| ultrastable wrote:
| as a great man said, "Political power grows out of the barrel
| of a gun"
| WalterBright wrote:
| The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It is powerless if
| people ignore it.
|
| It's the same with presidents, kings, and dictators. If people
| just stopped doing what they said, they become nothing.
|
| There's an incident in Soviet history where Stalin was sure
| they were coming to arrest and execute him. He was shaking and
| completely powerless. But they were just coming to affirm his
| power.
|
| The Arab Spring came about because people stopped following
| orders.
|
| When Nixon was on his way out, the military decided to not
| follow his orders (so I've read).
|
| The US will end when people just decide Constitution
| Shmonstitution.
|
| Gun control is neither here nor there for me personally, but
| what greatly concerns me is if the Bill of Rights is ignored
| wrt the 2nd Amendment, then what about the rest of the Bill of
| Rights? Is that next?
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| This reminds me of the tension between the Confucians and the
| Legalists in ancient Chinese Philosophy; as well as Etienne
| de La Boetie with his [1] Discourse on Voluntary Servitude.
|
| The Legalists believed that if you had good laws then the
| rest would take care of itself. They "advocated government by
| a system of laws that rigidly prescribed punishments and
| rewards for specific behaviours. They stressed the direction
| of all human activity toward the goal of increasing the power
| of the ruler and the state."[2]
|
| But the Confucians, particularly Mencius, pointed out that
| good men would create the good laws; while bad men would
| corrupt good laws. The laws were important for the ordering
| of society but insufficient. i.e. : "The sage-kings of
| antiquity are a model, but one cannot simply adopt their
| customs and institutions and expect to govern effectively
| (4A1). Instead, one must emulate the sage-kings both in terms
| of outer structures (good laws, wise policies, correct
| rituals) and in terms of inner motivations (placing ren and
| yi first). Like Confucius, Mencius places an enormous amount
| of confidence in the capacity of the ordinary person to
| respond to an extraordinary ruler, so as to put the world in
| order." [3]
|
| To borrow from the Confucians; the Constitution is a product
| of good men and good laws to help protect goodness and order
| in society, but without good men to continue to have a living
| embodiment of the principles, it is still just a law that can
| be corrupted or ignored.
|
| A beautiful quote from Etienne that you reminded me of is
| this, where he advocates to simply stop supporting tyrants:
| "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do
| not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him
| over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you
| will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has
| been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in
| pieces."
|
| Tyrants only have power because people choose to follow.
|
| [1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Discourse_on_Voluntary_Ser
| vit...
|
| [2] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Legalism#:~:text=The%20L
| ega....
|
| [3] https://iep.utm.edu/mencius/
| [deleted]
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > It is powerless if people ignore it.
|
| Indeed we just had a bit of a lesson in the recent past which
| showed exactly how dependent our country is (and probably
| most other countries as well) on shared values and tradition.
| The Constitution isn't all-powerful as a piece of paper, its
| real power is as an idea.
| Frost1x wrote:
| The real power is consensus in an idea. Hopefully that idea
| is good but ultimately, you need critical mass to accept an
| idea or reject it.
|
| If people in the US really want to grab back power to the
| citizens of this country it can be done (peacefully even).
| All it really takes is a large enough consensus of voters
| to upend all the garbage we're being subjected to. The
| issue is that the consensus is more difficult to reach due
| to the scale of the US voter population combined with
| tactics like gerrymandering and overall difficulty of
| orchestrating movements to support ideals most people seem
| to support (which isn't oppressing a minority unless we
| classify power and wealth hungry individuals as a protected
| minority which we currently seem to do).
|
| Reaching consensus amongst citizens is far far more
| difficult these days, giving an edge to those already
| sitting in positions of concentrated power with fewer
| players, lending itself more likely to reach a consensus.
| It doesn't help that those in power actively try and divide
| the general voter population and set us against one another
| making it even more difficult to reach a consensus.
| bobthechef wrote:
| > If people in the US really want to grab back power to
| the citizens of this country it can be done
|
| This can go either way, of course. We're sort of in
| between a rock and hard place. American oligarchs are
| guiding the country toward a 21st century brand of
| serfdom. The tyranny of the mob doesn't seem like a
| better alternative. You might expect the so-called
| Benedict Option to succeed, much like it did in the so-
| called Dark Ages.
|
| > The issue is that the consensus is more difficult to
| reach due to the scale of the US voter population
| combined with tactics like gerrymandering and overall
| difficulty of orchestrating movements to support ideals
| most people seem to support (which isn't oppressing a
| minority unless we classify power and wealth hungry
| individuals as a protected minority which we currently
| seem to do).
|
| These same oligarchs also employ psychological warfare to
| divide and occupy the populace. For example, all the
| recent race conflict? A total fabrication because the
| establishment is feeling the heat and the pressure of
| rising awareness. Racial conflict is a dependable tactic
| that has worked before. Sexual liberation is another form
| of political control. Get people addicted to porn and
| masturbation, unleash sex from the confines of marriage,
| divorce it from its procreative end, and you have a mass
| of people staring at their genitals and obsessing over
| orgasms as if it were the rapture (hilariously and
| tragically enough, rates of sexual intercourse are
| dropping and rates of ED in men are rising). Similar
| things can be said of the other cardinal vices. Whip up
| envy and people are kept busy envying each other. All
| this makes them easier to control. A man has as many
| masters as he has vices. That's why "sexual liberation"
| is such an oxymoron. "Sexual enslavement" is more
| fitting. The legalization of drugs is likely another
| weapon in the oligarchic arsenal. Get people doing drugs
| instead of facing their problems, growing in reason and
| virtue (and therefore freedom), and repairing the ills of
| the culture beginning with themselves. Get them to escape
| into myriad diversions, entertainment, and bullshit
| causes. Whip up emotions and sensationalize. Have then at
| each other's throats in the throes of wrath. Where two
| are fighting, a third profits.
|
| > Reaching consensus amongst citizens is far far more
| difficult these days,
|
| And why is that? Because the cultural and civilizational
| underpinnings of the West are disintegrating. So many
| things that to so many seemed so minor have been the thin
| ends of a wedge. Over time, they weakened the principles
| and the tradition that marked their continuity. The
| withering of classical education means that tradition, in
| practice, became reduced to mere convention, leaving
| people vulnerable to revolution and moral corruption. It
| means you have no defense against the unfolding of the
| consequences of liberal philosophy and modernism which
| now puts you in the defensive position.
|
| > It doesn't help that those in power actively try and
| divide the general voter population and set us against
| one another making it even more difficult to reach a
| consensus.
|
| And there it is. Libido dominandi, the lust for power.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| The 2nd Amendment is always a great point in these kind of
| debates if any other right had half as many restrictions on
| it people would be on the streets. Requiring an ID to vote is
| viewed as completely unacceptable by many but the very same
| people think it's perfectly reasonable to require it for
| other rights.
| anaerobicover wrote:
| The right of voting is more essential, however, it is the
| _sine qua non_ of all the others. If we fall down to the
| point where guns are required to indeed defend the rights,
| they functionally are not existing any more.
| mc32 wrote:
| We gotta thank the Bush admin for this. Obama had the opp to
| make things right, but passed and instead gave them a wink.
| Trump was never going to act against these interests even if
| he'd wanted to given all the other aspects he was embroiled in.
| And now Biden. No way is he going to buck the establishment.
| Unfortunately Ron Paul nor anyone like him will make it into
| office to dismantle this surveillance-industrial complex.
| jtdev wrote:
| Uhhhh... Obama doubled down on this bullshit.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >Trump was never going to act against these interests even if
| he'd wanted to given all the other aspects he was embroiled
| in.
|
| Yet another person completely unaware that Trump let the
| Patriot Act expire:
| https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/house-vote-
| fisa/inde...
|
| Can't say I'm surprised, the left didn't want to make huge
| news about it because it made Trump look good (and the
| establishment left supports the Patriot Act), and the right
| establishment/military supports the Patriot Act as well so
| they didn't want to raise a hubbub about it.
| howenterprisey wrote:
| Just in case anyone sees that and thinks it was due to any
| sort of principles or concerns about mass surveillance, a
| quote from the article: "Thank you to our GREAT Republican
| Congressmen & Congresswomen on your incredibly important
| blockage last night of a FISA Bill that would just
| perpetuate the abuse that produced the Greatest Political
| Crime In the History of the U.S., the Russian Witch-Hunt.
| Fantastic Job!"
| koolba wrote:
| Who would have a better understanding of the issue at
| hand than someone who's campaign was spied on by
| political operatives leveraging FISA powers?
| throwaway8581 wrote:
| Umm, orange man bad.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| Don't you mean Ron Wyden and not Ron Paul?
|
| Otherwise you're pretty much spot on.
| adventured wrote:
| They mean making it into the White House I believe. Ron
| Paul would certainly attempt to dismantle it, and he'd fail
| miserably (he'd never win election to begin with though).
|
| The larger confusion on the part of the parent is thinking
| the President is in charge of much of anything or has the
| power to dismantle any of these deep state perma structures
| that have been built up in the post WW2 era; these are
| structures that survive any given administration,
| regardless of political agenda, and which nobody really
| dares to challenge. That includes the always expanding
| spying systems and military industrial complex. Any
| President that tries it will be burned out of DC every
| which way possible. Instant lame duck, crippled by their
| own party, on the outs with the news media (which is
| entirely a pet of the deep state), lambasted coming and
| going, tripped up in staged scandals set up by deep state
| opponents in the FBI or CIA, probably get impeached a few
| times for relatively trivial things (vs, say, starting wars
| in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya that got a million plus
| people killed; you know, things you should actually get
| impeached for). The President is more of a token figurehead
| today than not.
| atatatat wrote:
| > he'd never win election to begin with though
|
| How do you persevere in the face of this type of media
| blacklisting?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMdrwhDoZjQ
| mygoodaccount wrote:
| Am i missing something? How does the video demonstrate
| "blacklisting"? It looks like the feed cut out.
| adventured wrote:
| I didn't watch your link (I rarely follow stray YouTube
| links). However regarding Ron Paul, I don't envy what he
| has endured in his lifetime from moronic opponents on
| both sides of the political aisle. The YouTube video of
| him being harangued & attacked by zombie anti-drug
| zealots on the Morton Downey Jr show is enough to feel
| sorry for him for a lifetime.
|
| Persevere, though? Anyone that dares to tell the truth
| today is begging for a blacklisting. That's what building
| the big tech censorship systems is all about (which will
| be America's version of the great firewall), being able
| to dictate what the supposed truth is for any given topic
| at any given moment in time. It's a martyrs game, telling
| the truth, I assume Ron Paul has known that for a long
| time.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Persevere, though? Anyone that dares to tell the truth
| today is begging for a blacklisting.
|
| Indeed. Liz Cheney's fate[0] is a great example of that.
|
| [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/
| 12/liz-...
| vlan0 wrote:
| Yep. We saw it with Andrew Yang as well. Either being
| left out completely, or media outlets taking about 'him'
| without actually saying his name.
| NotSammyHagar wrote:
| I'm skeptical of this media blackout. I heard lots of
| people talking about this, he was on podcasts, I saw him
| interviewed. Look at how much discussion there is about
| him running in NYC. I think it was much more that there
| were a whole lot of credible people running and there
| wasn't enough air in the room for him to get much. I saw
| every losing group complain of the election being stolen
| from them in some way, Warren, Sanders, Yang.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| > I saw every losing group complain of the election being
| stolen from them in some way, Warren, Sanders, Yang.
|
| The irony of this statement is you see it as evidence of
| there being no conspiracy, but I see it as exactly the
| opposite. Maybe everyone complaining about the same
| problem means the problem is real?
| atatatat wrote:
| Bingo.
|
| Easiest mainstream evidence is treatment of candidates in
| debates -- which, reminder, are operated entirely
| by...basically whoever in academia or media.
| NotSammyHagar wrote:
| I don't believe that. First, a pres. in their second term
| can do it without fear of electoral repercussions to
| themselves. And these days there's so much made up stuff
| that half the country believes that it wouldn't make any
| real difference in the big picture.
|
| There was the
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee after all.
| The people that benefit from the current situation would
| be against changing it of course. But I agree it's
| extremely unlikely to be changed. I think the reason is
| that most federal elected politicians have a comfort with
| what these groups are doing that gives them a sense that
| we need these things. Something like "we are doing a
| terrible amount of spying on americans but it's
| protecting us". Plus they get campaign donations from the
| military industrial and spying complexes. And not much
| attention is given to the fact that a dishonorable leader
| could use this to start blackmailing opponents and maybe
| even ultimately control the population. Fortunately we
| haven't ever come close to a leader like that, ha ha.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| Yes, blame GWB. But I'm not sure why you're giving a pass to
| Obama, Trump, and Biden. Their failure to address it is every
| bit as bad as anything that was (presumably) set up under
| Bush.
| clairity wrote:
| i'd go one step further and prohibit our government from
| surveilling any non-governmental foreigner without an auditable
| warrant, and strictly prohibit corporations with heavy
| sanctions from sharing any non-governmental surveillance with
| the government whatsoever (on top of existing privacy laws of
| course). the government should be in service, not in command,
| of the people.
| c3534l wrote:
| The government only has the powers granted to it by the
| constitution. If the power for the executive to unilaterally
| conduct searches was not given to it, then it doesn't have
| it. Just because it doesn't say the government can't surveil
| foreigners doesn't mean they can - it has to specifically say
| the government is granted the right to surveil foreigners.
| And there's really very little reason to think that a power
| never granted to the government in the first place in the
| case of Americans was actually, somehow in secret, granted in
| the cases of non-Americans.
| salawat wrote:
| Note: military surveillance should notcross with Law
| Enforcement surveillance.
|
| They are two different things in the eyes of the judiciary.
|
| The military can get away with surveillance under the
| mandate of defending the United States from all threats,
| foreign and domestic.
|
| The product of that surveillance, however, is not
| permissible as far as I know in a court of law unless it's
| specifically UCMJ.
|
| Not a lawyer though. If one is around willing to enlighten
| us on this odd question, it'd be much obliged.
| clairity wrote:
| i'd also generally agree with this, but not everyone does,
| so let's spell it out more clearly, even if somewhat
| redundantly.
| ncmncm wrote:
| Government exercises exactly the powers it claims and is
| not restrained from exercising. E.g., the US Constitution
| does not grant the Executive branch the power to torture
| prisoners taken without due process. Instead, persons
| nominally overseen the Executive branch exercise those
| powers exactly until they are exposed and stopped.
|
| The main use of surveillance is, _always and everywhere_ ,
| extortion. We see this daily among local, state, and
| federal police, abusing it to coerce the public to become
| informants; among prosecutors to coerce false admissions of
| guilt; and among spooks to convert formerly free
| individuals to "assets", and to enforce silence about
| abuses. It is used to coerce judges to issue unjust orders
| and decisions, to coerce witnesses to remain silent, and to
| coerce elected officials to vote against the interest of
| their constituents, or even to step down from an elected
| position or not to seek re-election. It is used to coerce
| awarding contracts or custom to undeserving suppliers, or
| to coerce lower prices in services sold.
|
| Coercion need not be based on surveillance of the person
| coerced; it can come from surveillance of parents,
| siblings, offspring, friends, business partners, customers,
| service providers.
| andred14 wrote:
| The 2020 election is proof that currently what is written
| in the constitution does not matter
| tsimionescu wrote:
| The text of the US constitution explicitly talks about the
| rights of people, not citizens - so I would argue that the
| constitution itself has always prohibited this.
|
| However, there is a long history of interpreting 'people' to
| mean specific groups - from only white people to only
| citizens.
| rayiner wrote:
| > The text of the US constitution explicitly talks about
| the rights of people, not citizens - so I would argue that
| the constitution itself has always prohibited this.
|
| No, it talks about "the people." As in the preamble: "We
| the People of the United States."
|
| > However, there is a long history of interpreting 'people'
| to mean specific groups - from only white people to only
| citizens.
|
| Playing with the interpretation of "people" has never been
| a mechanism for excluding people from constitutional
| protection. For example, the 3/5ths clause states as
| follows:
|
| > Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned
| among the several States which may be included within this
| Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall
| be determined by adding to the whole Number of free
| Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
| Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all
| other Persons
|
| It refers to enslaved people as "persons." The Fugitive
| Slave clause likewise refers to a "person held to service
| or labour."
| sophacles wrote:
| The first half of your post contradicts the second half
| of your post.
| xinniethepooh wrote:
| 'Any non-governmental foreigner' includes the vast number of
| non-official-cover spies sent by other nations. The
| government is to serve the people, but it must balance the
| fact that other world powers and enemy nations are seeking to
| undermine the nation.
| clairity wrote:
| then get a warrant since spying is probable cause. but no
| warrant, no surveillance. and the warrant should be
| reviewable/challengeable by more than a secret/military
| court. transparency and balance of power are crucial to
| maintaining a service (rather than a domineering)
| orientation.
|
| also, foreign governments in general spy with non-cover
| agents not to undermine our (US) government secretly, but
| to get an edge for their own power and prestige.
| undermining activities usually happen either with
| government agents for high secrecy operations (like
| stuxnet) or relatively openly if obscurely
| (disinformation/propaganda campaigns).
|
| the long-running encroachment against our liberties has
| been largely due to fundamental
| misgivings/misunderstandings like 'everyone is out to get
| us'. those are the same impulses that led us to
| performative responses to a pandemic rather than relatively
| minimal but targeted federal action (e.g., honest
| information dissemination and financial support for r&d and
| the at-risk/marginalized).
| coliveira wrote:
| The US government has a history of requesting extraordinary
| powers for extraordinary situations and never give them back.
| All the modern surveillance apparatus had its beginning
| during WW2. When the war was over, instead of pacifying the
| world, they immediately switched to create a cold war against
| a former ally to justify an even more expensive surveillance
| apparatus. With the end of former Soviet Union, instead of
| dismantling the surveillance industry, they started to create
| new enemies around the world, so people would be coerced to
| keep them employed against the interests of the population.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Yes. The Stalinist Soviet regime were innocent, peace-
| living victims.
| baybal2 wrote:
| In other news:
|
| - More than 120 retired generals and admirals wrote to Biden
| appearing to back a false election conspiracy and questioning
| his mental health - https://www.businessinsider.com/former-
| generals-admirals-let...
|
| - An open letter by former officers calling the president a
| "Marxist" dictator is a greater threat to U.S. democracy than
| the ouster of Liz Cheney. -
| https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/12/joe-biden-military-revo...
|
| - Over 120 retired generals and admirals signed on to a letter
| falsely claiming the 2020 election was stolen in a move other
| veterans say erodes democratic norms. -
| https://sofrep.com/news/retired-officers-question-2020-elect...
|
| 30 Brigadiers, 16 Lietenant Generals, 42 Major Generals.
|
| In any other normal country, at this stage people will call a
| military putsch brewing an inevitability.
| fredgrott wrote:
| it is often stated that locks are not for honest people, but to
| keep dishonest people out.
|
| can be applied to US constitution as additional laws needed not
| for those who WANT to uphold the US constitution but those who
| want to violate it.
|
| Most of you probably already saw a Michigan-congress rep submit
| a bill to violate the US constitution by trying to force
| twitter posters to register with Michigan to post facts because
| he wanted to prevent others from outing him in the form of fact
| checking.
| vernie wrote:
| Isn't it the other way around?
| danans wrote:
| > it is often stated that locks are not for honest people,
| but to keep dishonest people out.
|
| The saying goes the other way: "Locks are for honest people",
| implying that criminals aren't deterred by locks, and will
| just break a window if they want to get in.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > It seems silly tho that we need to pass a law to uphold
| what's already written into the constitution.
|
| The constitution only grants or limits power of various
| branches of government, it doesn't prescribe punishments for
| breaking the rules. That's a job of Congress (or courts, for
| civil cases).
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Even if the Constitution _did_ prescribe punishments (what 's
| a law without enforcement? wishful thinking.), everyone seems
| to think that just because there's some lines in the
| constitution that the matter is settled. We've been debating
| the constitution _since it was written._ We need laws to be
| tested in order to find out if they can or should be changed,
| or if we need to do something else.
| phkahler wrote:
| >> It seems silly tho that we need to pass a law to uphold
| what's already written into the constitution.
|
| The argument is probably pretty simple. These companies will
| sell your data to anyone for the right price, why would a
| government agency be any different. It's probably not a search
| or seizure, just a purchase between parties that don't even
| include any specific member of the public.
|
| First congress needs to make all this data selling and trading
| illegal, then we'll see how the government goes about obtaining
| it and weather that's legal or not. But too many lobbyists
| represent companies that make a ton of money on it, and of
| course these agencies would prefer to just purchase the data
| "legally", so I'm not terribly optimistic.
| java-man wrote:
| "not wittingly"
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEh-l_G1Gcs
| throwkeep wrote:
| Body language experts must have had a field day with that.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Can't watch because I am at work but the NSA conducts foreign
| surveillance. If a foreign target talks to a US citizen that's
| "unwittingly" surveiling a US citizen.
|
| Do you believe that it's alright for the NSA to conduct
| surveillance on foreign threats?
| Mediterraneo10 wrote:
| > Do you believe that it's alright for the NSA to conduct
| surveillance on foreign threats?
|
| It is one thing for the NSA to conduct surveillance on
| foreign _threats_ , but I have always been uncomfortable with
| the suggestion that the NSA is perfectly entitled to vacuum
| up the communications of ordinary, perfectly harmless foreign
| individuals because "the protections of the American
| Constitution don't apply to foreigners". The American
| Constitution is largely a product of 18th-century natural-law
| arguments, and so you would think that case can be made that
| all human beings are endowed by their Creator with a right to
| privacy regardless of their citizenship.
| MikeUt wrote:
| But the NSA _did_ collect data on hundreds of millions of US
| citizens, knew about it, and _lied about it to congress and
| the US people_. That is the exact opposite of "unwittingly".
| That is the action of a domestic threat that has escaped
| democratic and even government control.
|
| > "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions
| or hundreds of millions of Americans?" He responded, "No,
| sir." Wyden asked "It does not?" and Clapper said, "Not
| wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently,
| perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."
|
| > The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the
| Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to
| give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its
| systems, both within the US and between the US and other
| countries: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-
| phone-reco...
| totalZero wrote:
| A conversation that includes a single US person should be
| privileged more than a conversation between non-US persons.
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| > Do you believe that it's alright for the NSA to conduct
| surveillance on foreign threats?
|
| I like this question, but I think there's a better one: "do
| you believe it's alright for the NSA to _exist_? "
| xinniethepooh wrote:
| I like this question, but I think there's a better one: "do
| you think there is no legitimate threat that the NSA
| addresses?"
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| Are you saying that the NSA has a different definition of
| wittingly than the standard definition of wittingly?
|
| If you have a bug placed on someone's purse and they talk to
| others, you are wittingly surveilling them. Unwittingly would
| imply it was not foreseen that others would be spied on (e.g.
| placing a wiretap on the wrong phone number).
| auiya wrote:
| > Do you believe that it's alright for the NSA to conduct
| surveillance on foreign threats?
|
| Whether anyone believes it's okay to do or not is irrelevant,
| the NSA is charged to conduct foreign intelligence
| surveillance by US law, and does so accordingly.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Calling it unwitting is as lame an excuse as "I was suveiling
| the middle school locker room walls to prevent graffiti with
| hidden cameras when I recorded twenty-five terabytes of
| undressing minors. Therefore no crime was committed by
| shipping it over interstate lines to third parties for back
| up."
|
| They knew exactly what they were doing every step of the way.
| etrabroline wrote:
| Under the 4th amendment NSA is forbidden from collecting the
| communications of US citizens without a warrant. Do you
| disagree or think the constitution should be amended to
| authorize that?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Under the 4th amendment NSA is forbidden from collecting
| the communications of US citizens without a warrant.
|
| Strictly by the text this is false in a couple respects:
|
| (1) the text does not refer to or limit its provisions to
| citizens _at all_.
|
| (2) the text prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures,
| not those without warrants (it also sets standards for
| warrants, when they are issued.)
|
| The Supreme Court has inferred from the juxtaposition of
| the reasonableness requirement and warrant standards that
| warrants are presumptively but not universally required for
| reasonableness.
| [deleted]
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| The thing I still can't fathom, all these years after Bush II and
| then Snowden, is just how little human beings really care about
| mass surveillance. Yeah, the Snowden leaks made a splash, but the
| media cycle turned over a couple weeks later and everyone moved
| onto other things.
|
| It's like, if you're of a certain age, you had to read 1984 or
| whatever in school. You'd think "well, no one would stand for
| that sort of thing in real life!" Okay, so we don't live in
| _that_ society, exactly, but time after time, we 're shown the
| breadth of government surveillance and the reaction from the
| broader public isn't to call for anyone's head on a pike -- it's
| not even to vote anyone out!
|
| Outside of little communities like this one, people don't give
| much of a fuck. I guess that was Orwell's real point.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| I think most people would oppose it if the media were really
| presenting it as an issue to keep in mind. However, most of the
| people in the media are very much supporters of such powers, as
| they are deep believers in the rightness of US institutions and
| their 'fundamentally benign' nature. If you look at the media,
| most are still in support of every single war America has ever
| been in, with the only opposition being on matters of strategy
| (e.g. "The US should have retreated from Vietnam earlier", not
| "there was no defensible reason for the war in Vietnam, it was
| just a blatant display of imperialism"). And I'm not talking
| about Fox (who pride themselves on such views), but even the
| most liberal papers or news channels.
|
| Of course, they are very much opposed to such measures in other
| countries, especially their enemies.
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| I think this is on point, and way underappreciated by the
| non-hard-right in the US. People who vote Democrat tend to
| think of "their" media institutions as objective or sincere,
| and they're quick to forgive the litany of examples of
| heinous shit the NYT or WP or CNN has pulled over the years -
| salivating and fully turgid support for endless wars being
| just the most obvious example.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| This video of CNN host Brian Williams referring to 'The
| Beauty of our Weapons' has stuck with me as one of the most
| bizarre examples of the prevailing pro-war attitude in the
| 'left press':
|
| https://twitter.com/i/status/850204332758716420
| thanatos519 wrote:
| Maybe 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' by Neil Postman will help
| you fathom it; here's the forward:
|
| https://www.tau.ac.il/education/muse/maslool/boidem/170forew...
| treis wrote:
| > Bush II and then Snowden, is just how little human beings
| really care about mass surveillance.
|
| I'm struggling to think of a single negative thing that I can
| directly associate with mass surveillance in the US. Certainly
| nothing bad has happened to me personally or anyone that I know
| because of it. So no one cares because it doesn't impact
| anyone's lives.
| pope_meat wrote:
| Here's one negative thing you can now associate with mass
| surveillance.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
| treis wrote:
| I don't see that as a clearly negative thing. At worst it's
| controversial and theoretically could lead to negative
| things. But I don't see any concrete harm to associate with
| that practice.
| jackpirate wrote:
| The problem is that most ordinary people view that as a
| positive, not a negative.
| sneak wrote:
| I think most people don't care much about privacy for
| themselves ("I have nothing to hide") and are happy to let
| military intelligence daddy read their emails, as long as it
| doesn't affect their life.
|
| They remain ignorant of the fact that this means that people
| who actually do need privacy for purposes of organization
| against the harmful elements of the status quo (civil rights
| leaders, labor leaders, political party upstarts, et c) will be
| kneecapped by this for the remainder of the time the USA
| exists.
|
| It's a lack of imagination, really. The Long Now.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >I think most people don't care much about privacy for
| themselves ("I have nothing to hide") and are happy to let
| military intelligence daddy read their emails, as long as it
| doesn't affect their life.
|
| I'd point out that the DoD is _purchasing_ this data from
| private entities, not collecting it themselves.
|
| As such, I'd say that it's less about _government_
| surveillance specifically, and more about surveillance in
| general.
|
| Corporate surveillance is nothing new (Equifax/Experian/etc.
| have been doing that for at least half a century) and those
| folks collect, store and correlate enormously more data than
| does the US government.
|
| There is a massive effort by corporations to hide this sort
| of data collection, which has been mostly successful.
|
| Complaining about the government dipping into all that tasty,
| tasty data is like blaming the child who was sickened by
| stealing a cookie from a batch that was poisoned, then making
| sure that the rest of the batch is fed to the intended
| target.
|
| That most folks are _just_ complaining about big, bad
| government (which isn 't wrong, but just a tiny portion of
| the larger issue), rather than the folks who are collecting,
| correlating and using such data to their own advantage (of
| which selling it to governments is just chump change) seems
| rather silly and short-sighted.
| sneak wrote:
| Corporate data collection doesn't generally send the police
| or military to your house when you sufficiently challenge
| the status quo.
|
| Corporations don't generally have guns or handcuffs that
| they can use on arbitrary people. The state does, which is
| why there's such a danger associated with them being able
| to access the data.
|
| Experian doesn't have a torture chamber. The Chicago PD and
| the CIA do.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Corporations don't generally have guns or handcuffs that
| they can use on arbitrary people. The state does, which
| is why there's such a danger associated with them being
| able to access the data.
|
| And that makes it perfectly fine for corporations to do
| so? Because they can't rough you up or arrest you?
|
| Please.
|
| As I said: ...complaining about big, bad
| government (which isn't wrong, but just a tiny
| portion of the larger issue)
|
| My point (apparently, I wasn't explicit enough) was that
| it's not _just_ governments that are the issue. What 's
| more, if there were appropriate restrictions on
| collecting and monetizing peoples' data, in this case the
| DoD would have nothing to buy.
|
| It's much easier (at least in the US) to restrain the
| Federal government than hundreds (thousands?) of
| corporations, regardless of their monopoly on the use of
| force.
|
| Railing against the government for compromising the
| privacy of its citizens is absolutely appropriate. That
| said, there is the much, much more widespread issue of
| corporate surveillance that should _also_ be addressed.
| sneak wrote:
| There's a big difference between being under surveillance
| because people want to manipulate you into giving them
| money, and being under surveillance so that you can be
| kidnapped at gunpoint to stop you from whatever it was
| you were doing (even if it is all legal).
|
| Corporate surveillance is bad, sure. But, even when
| maximally bad, it doesn't pose that grave a threat to a
| society's correct functioning.
|
| When the state gets to use it for what is called "law
| enforcement" (qualified because, for example, the
| aforementioned CIA torture prisons, and MLK Jr was
| targeted thus by the FBI, and sent threatening letters by
| them as a result) the maximum danger from misuse is a
| grave risk to a free society.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Corporate surveillance is bad, sure. But, even when
| maximally bad, it doesn't pose that grave a threat to a
| society's correct functioning.
|
| Except it does. Especially in this case, since the
| government purchased the data collected via corporate
| surveillance. Or did you miss that part?
|
| If the data hadn't been _collected_ via corporate
| surveillance,the DoD would have nothing to buy, would
| they?
|
| We _can_ vote out of government those who would allow
| violations of our privacy (whether or not we do so is a
| different, but equally important discussion). We _cannot_
| do so with corporations.
|
| Given the circumstance in this case (the DoD _purchasing_
| this data from private corporations rather than
| collecting it independently), including corporate
| surveillance in the discussion is critically important.
|
| When one's paycheck depends on a not understanding
| certain things, it's often difficult to get that person
| to understand those things. Some food for thought,
| friend.
| kingTug wrote:
| Not caring about privacy because you have nothing to hide is
| like not caring about free speech because you have nothing to
| say.
| ultrastable wrote:
| I think this might be overly pessimistic. imo more people
| care about their privacy but feel powerless to affect change
| than don't really care about it at all
| derg wrote:
| Honestly it could also be it's just hard to fathom the breadth
| and scale. Easier to imagine someone opening your mail or
| tapping your phone or otherwise physically interacting with
| things you own over the government intercepting a request to
| post a picture to facebook, for instance.
|
| I think a fair number of people intuitively understand just how
| massive the internet is and it's hard to conceptualize someone
| or something sifting through the sand to find your few little
| grains.
| austincheney wrote:
| That is why I find most interesting about social media
| generally. Many people seem to care about government mass data
| collection all the while voluntarily and intentionally
| providing to private companies from which the government
| purchases it. Having your cake and eating it too.
| sneak wrote:
| "We can't tell you if we are violating your constitutional rights
| or not, because that's classified on the basis of national
| security."
|
| When the preservation of the formerly supreme law of the land is
| made subordinate to the interests of the ruling military, I think
| it is safe to say the american experiment is over.
|
| I have long maintained that the US is basically a military
| dictatorship. There are many examples, like the CIA hacking
| congressional computers to cover up the fact that the CIA lied
| under oath to congress. Snowden telling us that all of the large
| US internet and web service providers have to spy on everyone,
| citizens and not, without a warrant. And now this.
|
| The US is not a free country today, if indeed it ever was.
| ssklash wrote:
| I knew before even reading that the senator would be Ron Wyden.
| He's a treasure and the most tech-literate politician I know of.
| Oregon is lucky to have him, and we could use a lot more like
| him.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| As an Oregonian I also strongly suspected that it was Ron Wyden
| prior to opening the article. Oregon is fortunate to have two
| good Senators (Wyden and Merkley).
| nickysielicki wrote:
| Respectfully, the most tech-literate politician is without a
| doubt Thomas Massie, who went to MIT for both his undergrad in
| electrical engineering and his masters in mechanical
| engineering, who formed a decently successful startup working
| on novel computer input mechanisms.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Massie#Early_life,_educ...
| ssklash wrote:
| Fair enough. I think it would be more accurate to say that
| Wyden is the most vocal and effective when it comes to tech-
| related issues.
| dzonga wrote:
| reminds me of the politicians in my native country. very well
| educated either lawyers, engineers or doctors. but idiots and
| corrupt.
|
| I would rather have a non degreed non corrupt politician.
| seniorivn wrote:
| that's a horrible choice to make, an honest idiot with
| great power might bring a disaster without even knowing it.
|
| I would prefer a highly competitive political system with
| all sorts of different people as politicians, that has
| little to none power to affect real people's lives without
| consent
| saiya-jin wrote:
| There is some common perception that an educated person is
| automatically a moral person. I can see why on average it
| could increase chances a bit, but my life experience
| contradicts this quite a bit. Upbringing, general
| environment and society, the rewards morality brings bear
| make much bigger impact. I would say even traveling the
| world, especially the not-so-nice parts and meeting poor ie
| via backpacking, has much bigger effect on personality than
| education.
|
| Just one example out of many - last weekend had long
| conversation with very successful and very smart urology
| surgeon here in Switzerland, where he repeatedly stated how
| covid is great and godsend and mankind should be culled,
| too bad that not more are dying from it etc.
|
| The same person who in his early 30s is quite a bit
| overweight, has type 3 diabetes, can't handle physical
| effort, passed to his kid some genetic abnormality and if
| he got covid he would probably have some serious issues.
|
| I couldn't change his opinion a nanometer. A doctor.
| Needless to say my faith in humanity decreased a bit on
| that evening.
|
| That and everybody has a price. Or almost everybody.
| Definitely those that manage to get to top politics and
| remain there for decades, it ain't for average joe and nice
| honest folks in any way.
| tclancy wrote:
| Actions speak louder than CVs. That reads like an argument
| from authority.
| verall wrote:
| And yet he is publicly against Net Neutrality and doesn't
| believe in climate change. Tribal affiliation takes priority
| over technical ability I guess.
| adventured wrote:
| Political affiliation doesn't have to be the factor there
| at all. He can also think you're wrong about those topics -
| in the counter positions to his views - and he can believe
| his argument is strong and well supported, superior to the
| arguments on the other side.
|
| I've met a lot of very smart people in my lifetime that are
| wrong about all sorts of prominent topics, despite being
| well-read on the topics in question. Pick nearly any
| subject and you can bet there are smart people on both
| sides that will disagree, and some of them will bring very
| potent arguments to the table even when they're wrong.
| someguydave wrote:
| your tribe or his tribe?
| vxNsr wrote:
| And yet:
|
| _Massie operates a cattle farm in Garrison, Kentucky, with
| his wife, Rhonda, and their four children.[153][154] They
| live in a solar-powered home that Massie built
| himself.[155][156] He is a Methodist.[157]_
| totalZero wrote:
| Thomas Massie is an example of what I like to call the
| "tetazoo paradox": As a person gets more adept regarding
| technology, their capacity to communicate with laypeople
| about technology diminishes. The best advocates for tech
| literacy are not the most tech-literate, but rather the ones
| in the middle ground who are smart enough to understand the
| technology and patient enough to communicate about it with
| laypeople who are a few eureka moments behind.
|
| We occasionally find wonderful people like Richard Feynman
| who can sidestep this inverse relationship, but not
| frequently.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| He's one of the very few politicians I support with little to
| no reservations about him getting stuff really wrong. We are
| indeed extremely proud to have him.
|
| I know enough people wired into local politics that if he had
| some huge hidden dark side, it'd be out there. He really is
| pretty much what he puts out there.
| freshair wrote:
| Until high ranking government officials start getting very length
| prison sentences for this sort of shit, I doubt it will ever get
| better.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Why would they get a prison sentence for legally buying
| information that the private sector can also buy?
| topkai22 wrote:
| Also with the legal precedent from the Supreme Court that
| telecom metadata IS not protected by the 4th amendment? It is
| NOT clear from the article that what is doing is legally
| unconstitutional, as much as I might personally disagree with
| the Judicial branch's current view.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| You can hire a PI legally. A police chief hiring a PI to
| bypass warrant restrictions would rightfully be in deep shit
| for it.
| giantg2 wrote:
| You seem to be implying that the PI has additional powers.
| It's quite the opposite. Any search that a PI can _legally_
| do can also be done by legally by the police. Police have
| access to government sources of data that PIs do not, can
| collaborate with other departments, and can detain people
| (under the right circumstances).
|
| The chief might get in trouble, but usually that has to do
| with policies against using external resources or for
| budget constraints.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| I don't like how this article buries the important parts of this
| story. There is good reason to think that this surveillance by
| public info is legal currently, there was a court ruling stating
| that's the case.
|
| A law is necessary to codify that this practice is a violation
| Fourth Amendment, and Wyden is currently one of a handful of
| senators trying to get it passed.
|
| The story eventually mentions this, but the beginning focus on
| confidentiality makes it seem like they're hiding evidence of
| their crime.
| kemitchell wrote:
| I'm not familiar with any such ruling. Which do you have in
| mind?
| auiya wrote:
| So Wyden's issue is the DoD is buying access to these data sets
| from private industry? I'm not sure there has been a court ruling
| declaring this practice to be illegal, and it might very well be
| legal depending on the dataset's coverage and what it's intended
| use would be. The DoD's OGC are not stupid when it comes to these
| sorts of matters, and surely they've had to weigh in on this
| collection point already. I guess this is why Wyden is trying to
| pass legislation for this practice to be illegal unless
| explicitly directed by court order to do so? I'm betting the DoD
| has already anticipated this and filters out the domestic traffic
| they don't care about prior to ingest - I think they have to do
| so by law anyway. So Congress can pass a law saying a court order
| is needed first to buy these communications datasets, but the
| FISC will continue to be a rubber stamp for the IC, and not at
| all the friction barrier the legislators are hoping for. This
| strikes me as posturing and nothing more.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| This is about the DoD purchasing data from 3rd parties.
| swiley wrote:
| I wonder if this is why the anti trust action against
| Apple/Google/Qualcomm has taken so long.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Antitrust suits are slow and hard even when they are
| legitimate and not publicity stunts or attempts to punish
| enemies.
| babypuncher wrote:
| The lawsuits are usually against incredibly wealthy
| corporations. It's best to make sure your case is air tight
| before going up against the best lawyers money can buy.
| epberry wrote:
| We should all be grateful that Senator Wyden has been a champion
| for these issues. I like to watch him in hearings and it's clear
| he's one of the most well prepared questioners on issues of
| privacy and liberty. To the staff of his office, if you're seeing
| this comment section - thank you!
| bsd44 wrote:
| This is brand new information.
| HDMI_Cable wrote:
| The Third Party Doctrine is one of the things that is so
| obviously out of date, and _needs_ to be changed. When so much of
| our lives (to the point where it _is_ our lives) are online, why
| is there no expectation of privacy?
|
| --- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Because they wanted to take as much as they could without any
| pesky constitutional rights getting in the way.
| [deleted]
| sprkwd wrote:
| This is my surprised face.
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| A warrant is not required for the government to purchase
| commercial data products and there are plenty of legitimate uses
| for this kind of data. Security analytics would seem to be an
| obvious use case for netflow data, for example. Commercial
| datasets are also used for address correction and standardization
| and most government agencies routinely do.
| tclancy wrote:
| >there are plenty of legitimate uses for this kind of data
|
| Who defines "legitimate" and why should that be an argument for
| doing something that seems blatantly unconstitutional?
| jtdev wrote:
| This sounds like the definition of flimflam with a splash of
| gaslighting...
|
| flimflam: deceptive nonsense
| SquibblesRedux wrote:
| Regarding the DoD purchasing data from data brokers, I would much
| rather first focus on laws or regulations that set legal
| standards for the collection, sale, and other distribution of
| personal information. For example, make the sale of personal
| information to a government agency an act that requires posting
| notice on a public register. Also, a hefty tax on the sale of
| personal information would be nice to see.
|
| I would focus on the collection and sale of personal information
| first because it is often done without the informed consent of
| the person to whom the information is associated.
| grayfaced wrote:
| If these data brokers are already selling this data, I'm not
| going to get upset at the govt for buying it.
|
| I want restrictions on EVERYONE buying my data. Not just one
| entity.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >I want restrictions on EVERYONE buying my data. Not just one
| entity.
|
| That's a start, but I'd prefer restrictions on EVERYONE
| _collecting_ my data too.
| sjaak wrote:
| Land of the free, home of the surveilled.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-13 23:00 UTC)