Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

politico.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 493 posts

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#381

Post by eesmith »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #195
eesmith wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find mention of him making that specific promise of pardoning all non-violent drug crimes. I did find https://joebiden.com/justice/ saying: > Biden believes no one should be in jail because of cannabis use. As president, he will decriminalize cannabis use and automatically expunge prior convictions. And, he will support the legalization of cannabis for medical purposes, leave decisions regarding legalization…

He's talking about changing laws, which of course he can't literally do, but Presidents always claim to do and they do have a lot of influence over Congress.

Ahh, I think you're right.

NC passed a Second Chance Act which makes it easier to expunge records, says https://abc11.com/second-chance-act-roy-cooper-signed-into-l... , and "Cases dismissed after December 1, 2021 may automatically be expunged per the Second Chance Act." says https://www.swlawnc.com/blog/new-expungement-law-in-nc which adds that laws in other states have automatic removal of dismissed charges after a period of time.

This means that my quote from Wikipedia about expungement isn't the full story.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#382

Post by leto_ii »

tialaramex wrote: post #338
AnonHP wrote: post #325

Whenever I see such news and then look around at what they’ve been doing and continue to do (revealed sometimes in congressional hearings), it seems to me that the executive and the legislature are truly toothless in the face of these three-letter agencies. Nothing they say or put forth as law will be obeyed. So why even have laws then? Then you also have top representatives from these agencies lying outright in publ…

They're spooks. This is what they're for. The constraints are at best just theatre, obviously their adversaries aren't going to obey these rules, and they know that so if they are to be effective (and if they aren't why would they exist at all?) they will also disobey these rules. The purpose of such rules in practice is to help the American public to sleep at night despite having tacitly authorised a nightmare. You…

> Congress could, if the American people wanted - which they do not - abolish these agencies entirely.

Unfortunately that's not now power works, not even in a relatively free society such as the US. How often does the public actually get their way when it comes to policy? Once elected, representatives will almost certainly follow the same agenda - work hard to maintain power and privilege for the existing ruling class. Secret services with discretionary power are an invaluable tool in this endeavor.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#383

Post by kelnos »

vorpalhex wrote: post #313
Voliokis wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is there a statute of limitations for government officials? This shouldn't be a thing when you're entrusted with the responsibilities that you are concerning an entire country and its citizens.

The ability to defend yourself of a charge disappears over time. Evidence "rots" as weird as that sounds.

Sure, but we've decided that for some crimes (like murder) there is no statute of limitations, and we have a greater interest in prosecuting those crimes than in ensuring it's reasonable for a defendant to defend themself many years later.

I think the same should be true of our civil servants who wield so much power over the populace.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#384

Post by vinay427 »

eganist wrote: post #153
fortran77 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have to. They can let the lower court's decision stand.

The lower court's decision standing enables litigation against the federal government and the NSA specifically.

Are you implying that you think SCOTUS would consequently feel forced to overturn the ruling? If so, I don't follow. Wouldn't these subsequent legal proceedings have their own minutiae that lead courts to make varying decisions?

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#385

Post by kelnos »

ColanR wrote: post #107
xxpor wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Either our founding document matters as the backbone of our Laws or it doesn't. Nitpick, the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. Congress isn't the final authority of if laws are constitutional or not. The courts are. Congress and the Supreme Court commonly disagree on the constitutionality of laws. What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the…

> No regular people voted on the Constitution. Nitpick. The people who were sent as representatives from each state to help write and ratify the constitution were chosen by the people of that state. So technically, through representative democracy, the regular people did agree to the constitution because their representatives agreed on it.

Who do you think was allowed to vote to choose those people? Only free men who owned land. That was a very, very small fraction of the population of the colonies/US at the time. These were hardly "regular people".

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#386

Post by kelnos »

salawat wrote: post #336
xxpor wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the same thing IMO. Ignoring the issue of who was allowed to vote in the 1780s, there's a reason why the House was voted on by the people and the Senate the state legislatures. They recognized then the two groups have different interests.

State Senators were still voted on by the People, and part of the vote of confidence for taking part in the State Senate was a recognition of their capability to choose who represented the State at the National level based on understanding of the State's business. To be honest, I kind of wonder whether it was better to let the State Legislature decide. Wasn't alive then though and haven't done the research.

Those State Senators were still selected by what was then a very small faction of the "People": non-slave male landowners.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#387

Post by furyg3 »

tialaramex wrote: post #338
AnonHP wrote: post #325

Whenever I see such news and then look around at what they’ve been doing and continue to do (revealed sometimes in congressional hearings), it seems to me that the executive and the legislature are truly toothless in the face of these three-letter agencies. Nothing they say or put forth as law will be obeyed. So why even have laws then? Then you also have top representatives from these agencies lying outright in publ…

They're spooks. This is what they're for. The constraints are at best just theatre, obviously their adversaries aren't going to obey these rules, and they know that so if they are to be effective (and if they aren't why would they exist at all?) they will also disobey these rules. The purpose of such rules in practice is to help the American public to sleep at night despite having tacitly authorised a nightmare. You…

Sorry but I disagree (partially). Where I agree is that covert agents operating abroad are by-definition criminals. Foreign governments don't give permission for spies to be present, and they break all sorts of their nations host laws while there. Morally this is questionable... if you believe that 'all men' have 'certain unalienable rights' then surely those should apply to how you treat all humans on earth and not only your own citizens; but most countries and their citizens accept the cat and mouse game that is spying abroad.

Where I disagree is that these powers are unchecked and tolerated when used on a country's own citizens. The mandate of both of these organizations is crystal fucking clear - do bad shit abroad but not to your own citizens. There has to be oversight of this, that oversight has to be built into the system, and there have to be consequences. Knowingly collect data on US citizens: go to jail. Fail to regularly audit whether or not you are inadvertently collecting data on US citizens: go to jail. Torture, steal, trespass, hack? Jail. Know that someone has done this and look the other way? Jail. But what about domestic terrorism, or important exceptions? No problem! Get a warrant.

This whole business of "we don't want spies to be afraid to their job" is bullshit... As a business owner it would be much easier to not pay my taxes, defraud investors, avoid safety regulations, and have my competition murdered. But I don't do it (and I'm not preoccupied with dread about it). Either our shared values (e.g. the constitution) are important or they are not.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#388

Post by kelnos »

hammock wrote: post #167
ardy42 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You know what I don't get? There is no penalty for violating the highest law of the land (the constitution). How is it anymore than a suggestion or a guidline if government officials are not punished for violating it? And that is exactly how lae enforcement and intelligence community treat it. It's because it can't reasonably work like that. At a certain point, defining punishments is moot, because there's no highe…

> If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." and Congress still makes a law, what are you going to do, throw Congress in jail? That's nonsense. Well.. you could depose them. Or declare independence from them. That has happened a few times in history. The Constitution is a social contract. The people say "we'll give you (government) these abc powers, if you promise to use them this xyz way." When that co…

In an ideal world, yes. In our actual world, the Constitution was ratified by a very small number of representatives from the population. And those representatives were drawn from and selected by white male landowners who owned some minimum threshold of land. IIRC that counted for less than 10% of the people living in the proto-US.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#389

Post by pulse7 »

maeln wrote: post #355
AnonHP wrote: post #325

Whenever I see such news and then look around at what they’ve been doing and continue to do (revealed sometimes in congressional hearings), it seems to me that the executive and the legislature are truly toothless in the face of these three-letter agencies. Nothing they say or put forth as law will be obeyed. So why even have laws then? Then you also have top representatives from these agencies lying outright in publ…

They are not toothless, they put them in those positions of power and do so gladly. Remember that Snowden always said he was ready to come back to the U.S and be trialled, as long as the trial wouldn't be a secret trial. Those who created the laws for those secret trial where not the CIA or the NSA, it was politician. The same way they made it so that it is forbidden to talk about the programs of certain agencies, ev…

Trials are secret because they don't want to reveal further secrets. On the other hand you hear people saying: "If you are doing everything right, you have nothing to hide."

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#390

Post by kelnos »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #192
AaronFriel wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would be unconstitutional ex-post-facto. Obergefell v. Hodges didn't define sex discrimination in marriage certificates unconstitutional after a certain date . It was always unconstitutional, and was recognized as such in their ruling. And yes, I would like to see, actually, qualified immunity removed and governments held liable for rights violations. Perhaps not prison time for the clerks - who were…

We already have that system. Congress can pay any reparations it decides. You want a system where any judge or jury can decide that someone owes someone else a billion dollars based on past law? Until 4 years later when a judge or jury rules the other way and makes them pay it back?

We're not talking about "someone" though; we're talking about city, county, state, or the federal government compensating victims when agents of the state violate their civil rights. No individual has to pay this directly.

Of course this money comes from somewhere: taxpayers. That seems appropriate, as the citizenry of the US should be held accountable for civil rights violations they allowed through poor choice in elected leaders. Yes, they might be several steps removed from the bad decision-making, but the buck has to stop somewhere.

Post reply on HN