United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden • Hacker News Board

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#151

Post by busterarm » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #65

busterarm wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seven of the eleven prosecutions under the act since its passing in 1917. It was intended to be a rare power. We shouldn't try to diminish that. That administration also grossly misused their Section 702 powers passed with the 2008 FISA ammendments as well. https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa-section-702...

> It was intended to be a rare power. I'm making the case that less than one a year in a population of 300+ million is, indeed, rare.

300 million people don't work in a capacity where they could even be tried under the Espionage Act.

Those 7 prosecutions were an act of workplace violence done as a representation of the will of the People. It was deeply offensive for there to even be a single prosecution and a clear sign that the Executive did not represent our interests.

We should have impeached him for it.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#152

Post by bb88 » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

Rooster61 wrote: post #81

bb88 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point an originalist to the constitutional clause or amendment that grants such a right?

It probably isn't in the Constitution, but I would not be surprised if there was legal precedent for such a thing.

That's the problem with an originalist, settled law isn't necessarily settled. Previous court decisions may have been decided incorrectly.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#153

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #151

ceejayoz wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was intended to be a rare power. I'm making the case that less than one a year in a population of 300+ million is, indeed, rare.

300 million people don't work in a capacity where they could even be tried under the Espionage Act. Those 7 prosecutions were an act of workplace violence done as a representation of the will of the People. It was deeply offensive for there to even be a single prosecution and a clear sign that the Executive did not represent our interests. We should have impeached him for it.

Let's be clear, then: you're arguing it should be a nonexistent power, not a rare one.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#154

Post by paxys » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:49 PM UTC

Simulacra wrote: post #56

He's broken the law in more than one ways. Regardless of his motives, he broke the law. We can't expect to hold Trump or anyone else accountable if we cannot hold responsible those who are entrusted to protect confidential information.

There are times when breaking the law isn't just okay, it is absolutely essential, and this was one of them.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#155

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:53 PM UTC

4ntonius8lock wrote: post #110

chrisdhoover wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't the concept of political refugees contrary to what you are saying? The way I see it, we acknowledge that sometimes a government can act outside of it's own boundaries in a repressive manner. That is why we help those who are fleeing persecution based on political activity. Saying you can't push for change and run away when repression comes would mean that a lot of people I admire, including the Dalai Lama, are…

[deleted]

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#156

Post by bb88 » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:57 PM UTC

homonculus1 wrote: post #87

bb88 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point an originalist to the constitutional clause or amendment that grants such a right?

No clause or amendment grants any right. Rights are explicitly innate to the individual and not granted by or limited to the constitution.

An originalist would point out that the constitution does not grant rights, but merely limits the laws and actions that government can take.

Despite what the constitution says, human rights are not self evident, they must in fact be legalized.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#157

Post by kerkeslager » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

Supermancho wrote: post #123

kerkeslager wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. There may exist a moral argument, but it's pretty easy to disprove that argument: In Nazi Germany, this principle would leave one to just leave Nazi Germany,…

> would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2 That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed. Regardless...moral choices are usually pitted against other moral choices and that's part of what shapes our moral "fiber", for lack of better vocabulary. To do something or do nothin…

> That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed.

I suppose you're right, but I don't think the assumption that there won't be a mass exodus is a very unreasonable assumption. Many reasonable ethical principles would have prevented the Nazis from even coming into power if everyone in the country applied it. I think if you were in Nazi Germany and as the Third Reich came to power it would be unreasonable to choose an ethical strategy that only works if everyone applies it, since in the moment, everyone was clearly not applying an ethical strategy.

We do have the benefit of hindsight here, though.

> To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future.

Agreed, ethics is very situational, which is why trying to find widely-applicable rules is often a wild goose chase.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#158

Post by stormbrew » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:58 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #66

omarhaneef wrote: post #43

Earlier 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.

"leaving a country" in terms of being subject to its laws is rather a lot easier said than done.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#159

Post by MereInterest » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 7:59 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #136

geggam wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are fundamental rules in the bill of rights the govt has passed laws to circumvent. Those laws are fundamentally illegal

Such as?

"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."

Any law that allows the NSA carte blanche to observe my communication is a law authorizing unreasonable search and seizure, and is therefore unconstitutional.

Re: United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

#160

Post by mattkrause » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 8:00 PM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #42

excalibur wrote: post #28

Earlier 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?

Is that really true?

In 1789, "papers", being made of actual paper, were in transit for much longer in 1789 and there are absolutely draconian laws against destruction and obstruction of the mail.

For example, 18 USC § 1702, which prohibits "with design to obstruct the correspondence, or to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secretes, embezzles, or destroys the same" also doesn't have a carve-out for governmental purposes.