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

481–490 of 493 posts

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

#481

Post by rexpop »

heimatau wrote: post #170
rexpop wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. This isn't a nitpick, this is simply irrational. The Articles of Confederation were the founding document of an institution called the "league of friendship," and although the Constitution inherits ideas from the Articles, they have no legal bearing on the latter. They're out of scope. Meanwhile, the Constitution liter…

This was very eloquent. I appreciate this description.

Thank you for saying so. It warms my heart to be read, since I try to be meticulous.

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

#482

Post by DataWorker »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #458
hyperdimension wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I feel like > A legislator's primary goal is to get reelected is the more pressing problem to issue first. Is their "primary goal" not to legislate first? Pandering to the court of public opinion in order to secure re-election seems like it would also cause all sorts of conflicting incentives.

I respectfully disagree; we want them accountable to the public. The simplest way to have politicians accountable to public opinion (without violence) is by making them have to care about elections. That's the entire point of democracy.

The public are only given a reflection of the candidate and even that is mediated by the media. Why worry about being accountable when you can spin the truth to suit your party agenda while half the media or more go merrily along with it. The public don’t see truth surrounding our leadership but a reflection that’s often far removed from reality. And it’s been this way since the beginning.

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

#483

Post by g00gle-hort »

hyperdimension wrote: post #449
furyg3 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> do bad shit abroad but not to your own citizens Well, yeah, that's the entire point of the Five Eyes: each member can spy on the others and share the results with the rest of them, but if one member were to spy on its own people , perish the thought! That would be unconstitutional!

Backwardly? Media and the wrong picture of a "good america" ? ^^

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

#484

Post by wholepicture »

kelnos wrote: post #368
AndrewBissell wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge parts of these agencies' activities have been moved off the books or to private entities. It's not as simple a matter as just cutting off their funding anymore.

Sure, but the money still has to come from somewhere, and that's from appropriations authorized by Congress. Now, if you believe that these agencies have amassed and hoarded enough of the money they've already been given that they now have an endowment that can perpetually fund their activities, then yes, that would mean you really can't stop them. But I'd find it hard to believe that's the case; what they do is not…

"The money has to come"

And the hope, with all this surrounding us, that somebody must made exclusive findings ? P-:

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

#485

Post by notduncansmith »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #458
hyperdimension wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I feel like > A legislator's primary goal is to get reelected is the more pressing problem to issue first. Is their "primary goal" not to legislate first? Pandering to the court of public opinion in order to secure re-election seems like it would also cause all sorts of conflicting incentives.

I respectfully disagree; we want them accountable to the public. The simplest way to have politicians accountable to public opinion (without violence) is by making them have to care about elections. That's the entire point of democracy.

How do you use the democratic process to hold someone accountable for weakening the democratic process? That’s like running barefoot to catch someone who stole your shoes.

I don’t think elections themselves, or manipulating what people care about, is the “simplest way” to do anything. It will make a giant mess, but there are simpler ways to do that too.

I don’t know the simplest way, but my guess is that it includes breaking down the current few large non-self-sufficient communities with poorly-defined value systems and weak social fabric into many small self-sufficient communities with well-defined value systems and strong social fabric, each of which will have less internal turmoil and therefore be better-equipped to be a healthy member of the ecosystem.

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

#486

Post by erikerikson »

kelnos wrote: post #402
erikerikson wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.iqt.org/

Not sure what your point is. Sure, the 3-letter agencies have an investment arm, but the capital used for those investments is a tiny fraction of their operating budget. And that capital still comes from Congress' appropriations.

The parent previously offered that three letter agencies would require an investment arm to sustain themselves. In that context, I offered that they had one. I can't claim any knowledge about the profitability of that group or what portion of funding is provided by that group which is relevant and you have added perspective on. I have personally experienced InQTel as an alternative funding mechanism which argues against it being a serious funding source.

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

#487

Post by webmaven »

entropicdrifter wrote: post #458
hyperdimension wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I feel like > A legislator's primary goal is to get reelected is the more pressing problem to issue first. Is their "primary goal" not to legislate first? Pandering to the court of public opinion in order to secure re-election seems like it would also cause all sorts of conflicting incentives.

I respectfully disagree; we want them accountable to the public. The simplest way to have politicians accountable to public opinion (without violence) is by making them have to care about elections. That's the entire point of democracy.

> I respectfully disagree; we want them accountable to the public. The simplest way to have politicians accountable to public opinion (without violence) is by making them have to care about elections. That's the entire point of democracy.

Having them care about getting reelected is one thing, having them care primarily about funding their campaign (because, while the deepest pockets may not always win, that is usually the way to bet) is quite another.

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

#488

Post by webmaven »

newswasboring wrote: post #347
tialaramex wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>and if they aren't why would they exist at all? Reminds me of Lisa simpsons rock which protects against tigers.

> >and if they aren't why would they exist at all?

> Reminds me of Lisa simpsons rock which protects against tigers.

Reminds me of Ernie's banana in the ear:

https://youtu.be/zwsmqZLCKPE

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

#489

Post by mamon »

lordnacho wrote: post #123
yyyk wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no choice in a democracy but to have something like the pardon power. The reason is that we need protection also from the power of judicial branch, which is abusable like any branch with power. Not having a pardon power allows bad judges to throw anyone they don't like into jail with no recourse by anyone. In a democracy, all branches are checked by the others, and this is a necessary check on the judicial br…

Now suppose the kid who shot the people in Kenosha gets a pardon (I don't know about jurisdiction). What would be the check on presidential power in that case? I think the pardoning thing is absolutely wrong in the US form, where it is used quite often. I think it's just crazy that you can do something illegal but if you can just talk one guy into it, you are off the hook. The only case I see where it makes sense is…

>> Now suppose the kid who shot the people in Kenosha gets a pardon

Offtopic, but for me that kid did nothing wrong - it was self defence. If he isn't found innocent by court then he definitely needs to be pardoned.

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

#490

Post by vonwoodson »

Erlich_Bachman wrote: post #376
vonwoodson wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t hold a random analyst, usually a contractor and not a “government official”, for not sharing your opinion on what a 200-year old, intentionally vague, document meant about who-was-contacting-who on a pice of technology that wasn’t invented. Let alone a law that was, albeit controversial at the time, in place for almost 20 years. Would you prefer that your public servants follow the law... or do whatever the…

That's one of the weakest attempts to justify illegal and unconstitutional actions I've seen. > Metadata is not the content of the calls but the data that the users put out to the world. So when I make a call to my private friends, that's "me putting data into the world"? And it is ok for everyone to read it because I did not write it on a paper and instead used the phone? That's how you treat the constitution's "per…

If you use a third party to transmit data, then yes. If it’s not literally “in the envelope” then it’s public data. Weak argument or not, that’s how the laws work. Think about that very hard next time you type something into the Google search box/make a phone call/send a letter/post something on hacker news. Oh, and it’s not the Big Bad Government that is collecting the metadata. Companies like Verizon sell this data. God bless privatization, right? And, I’ve literally heard the phrase “If we don’t buy this data, then they’ll just sell it to our adversaries.” Which I believe to be 100% true.
Post reply on HN