Booooh! Bad USA, bad. No cookie for you.
United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
71–80 of 501 posts
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're an originalist (and I'm not saying that I am), data in transmit is not necessarily protected by that amendment If your data has left your house, is it really your data, or is it Google's say?
Re: originalists: The framers couldn’t’ve imagined the internet, and, despite that, what you say on the internet is protected by the first amendment as it is speech. Why would the fourth amendment be any different?
Because the first and fourth amendments guarantee different rights. The first guarantees that you essentially can't be arrested for speech. It says nothing about whether or not your speech can be collected and recorded. The fourth forbids the government with searching the enumerated items without cause or a warrant. Very different things.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see the same issue with the other debate raging on HN: Stallman and Free Speech. The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate what is moral with what is legal. One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or people should have the right to say what the government is doing. Someone else responds with what is legal : the law applies to government curtailmen…
I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral. Not that I'm arguing one way or another how that applies in this situation, though.
Snowden did leave both the company and the country, though.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#74I bought the book, and I hereby commit to donating a large multiple of the price to an appropriate charity or Snowden himself if they win this suit.
I hope the government realizes how much they’re pissing everyone off by violating our rights and defending themselves for doing it
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try the 4th Amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If you're an originalist (and I'm not saying that I am), data in transmit is not necessarily protected by that amendment If your data has left your house, is it really your data, or is it Google's say?
If you're an originalist, spying on everybody is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rightly or wrongly, that is not a part of the SF86 form when one applies for a clearance. The SF86 form offers no leeway for moral objections. So in such a scenario, it would be better to not submit the SF86 form in the first place. The only people I'm aware of that can publish classified information without punishment are journalists.
I see the same issue with the other debate raging on HN: Stallman and Free Speech. The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate what is moral with what is legal. One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or people should have the right to say what the government is doing. Someone else responds with what is legal : the law applies to government curtailmen…
[deleted]
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing people seem unable to do with Snowden is separate the intention of his actions with the impact. I have no doubt he had the right intentions. Informing the people of the gross violations of civil liberties is a noble endeavor. However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on sources and methods. Real peopl…
You should read the book... nobody was put in danger. Snowden is an American hero.
You should talk to an actual intelligence officer or two. I have, which is where I got that impression from.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see the same issue with the other debate raging on HN: Stallman and Free Speech. The issue is that people -- not sure whether it was OP, or you -- conflate what is moral with what is legal. One person starts off with a moral premise: people should have free speech, or people should have the right to say what the government is doing. Someone else responds with what is legal : the law applies to government curtailmen…
I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral. Not that I'm arguing one way or another how that applies in this situation, though.
There the concept of civil disobedience. You don't simply leave a country because you disagree with it, you change it. Refer to the King and the civil rights movement for more. Go further back to the other Martin Luther for even more.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#79Disclaimer: I'm just a ingorant non-lawyer non-american. Wouldn't a great defense here be that the NDAs shouldn't be enforced because the actions covered were criminal? I mean, isn't that standard with NDAs?
Whistleblower laws allow you to blow the whistle to a government agency, not to the press or the public in general.
Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden
#80This is the "It is illegal to inform the citizen base that the government has removed their constitutional right" lawsuit. The NSA and FBI removed every US citizen of their constitutional right, to privacy. Edward Snowden informed the US citzen base on their constitutional rights being removed. This lawsuit is the government saying it is illegal for any US citizen to inform all other citizens when the government remo…
Given the fact the constitution binds the govt and details what rights the govt has I am not sure how the govt has a leg to stand on.
Because, AFAIK, there’s nothing binding the government from enacting a law against treason or espionage. So they did a century ago. The problem is not that (depending on who you ask). The problem is that they’re abusing “national security” to justify needing secret courts and claiming a legally protected action (whistleblowing[0]) is illegal.
[0]: Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_Protection_Act