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

FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

techdirt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 140 posts

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#91

Post by kelnos »

pauldenton wrote: post #65
coldtea wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because "the press" means journalism in general any way you cut it and you need to be very disingenuous to say otherwise as the spirit of the terms is obvious. Whereas "well regulated militia" absolutely doesn't mean "random redneck with a gun fetish" - the spirit is also obvious here.

People say the second amendment was made in the era of muskets so obviously an automatic rifle isn't what the founders were talking about While the first amendment was made in the era of newspapers, so obviously the right to speech doesn't extend to Telegrams, Radio, TV, or Digital communication

It seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think "hmm, muskets, yeah, that's something everyone should have on hand", but then get sent forward to the 2000s, have modern firearms shown to them, and say "oh whoa, yeah, no way, that seems like a terrible idea".

It also seems perfectly reasonable for someone from the 1700s to think that freedom of speech and the press is a good idea, and then get sent forward to the 2000s, see all of our modern forms of communication and speech, and say, "yeah, that's just a reasonable evolution of things, and should be covered".

Obviously we'll never know; so far we can't do time travel, so we don't know what they'd think today. This is why I think this sort of reasoning about the constitution is kinda dumb. Even if we could divine what the Founders thought, frankly I don't think it's all that relevant. They are not exactly experts on how government should work. Yes, they did the best they could at the time, but with all the biases and issues of the time. As an example, they also thought that only white landowners should vote, but advocating for that today would get you smacked down pretty quickly.

And regarding 2A, it'd also be reasonable to expect that same person from the 1700s didn't actually think every random person should have a musket, but that only people who are a part of a "well-regulated militia" should have access to one.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#92

Post by sobkas »

Terr_ wrote: post #10

On the subject of FBI/NSA/CIA insincerity, that makes me think of various post-9/11 debates often involving "ticking bomb" Hollywood scenarios. I'd like to reiterate that any kind of "OMG there's no time we must stop the NYC WMD ASAP" scenario already has a special exception route: Just commit the necessary spying/theft/torture crime, and plan for a Presidential pardon after explaining the extraordinary circumstances…

> On the subject of FBI/NSA/CIA insincerity, that makes me think of various post-9/11 debates often involving "ticking bomb" Hollywood scenarios.

It would be appropriate if we could reverse "ticking bomb" scenario. What if we suspect that government is about to break construction, would it be appropriate for citizens to torture public officials to reveal such information? After all neither of them (government and citizens) should be able to do so legally.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#93

Post by moehm »

smegsicle wrote: post #75
datadrivenangel wrote: post #15

"A warrant requirement would amount to a de facto ban, because query applications either would not meet the legal standard to win court approval" I hope that we get that de facto ban. It would be good for society.

watch as mass shootings go down when they have a harder time profiling patsies

'No way to prevent this,' says only nation where this regularly happens.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#94

Post by kelnos »

underseacables wrote: post #34
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be good, right up until it itself becomes as corrupted as the entities is prosecutes. The problem is that 'unconstitutional' is in the eye of the beholder. Take for example the classic "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Does this mean all gun control laws are unconstitutional or does it mean th…

Interpretation is an issue, just look at the way President Biden, and President Trump are being treated with regards to retention of classified documents. One is being prosecuted, the other is not. That's a very broad and public example, but the party in power typically does not prosecute its own.

Well.

One person retained said documents, bragged about having them, disclosed their contents to random, non-cleared people, lied about having declassified them, and then when the government asked them back, lied again and claimed he didn't have them, instructed his underlings to hide or destroy them, and obstructed the subsequent investigation.

The other person didn't realize he had them, returned them promptly when they were found, and cooperated with the ensuing investigation.

If you really think these two things are the same, I'm not sure you're going to have a productive conversation with anyone who wants to argue in good faith.

Also note that it's not just Biden who fell into that second category; Pence did as well. Funny how you didn't see the need to mention Pence. And good on him for also cooperating and returning what he had.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#95

Post by kelnos »

underseacables wrote: post #33
appleskeptic wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be awful. Theft and bribery are already prosecuted aggressively. If anything, too much. It’s gotten to the point that high government officials can’t afford to be lobbied. Here they are, some of the most powerful people in the world, paid barely enough to live an hour drive away from DC, having to spend a fair bit of their personal income to go to lunch and dinner with leaders of private industry. As for c…

Your comment brought to mind the number of IRS employees who are delinquent on their taxes. I think it really comes down to trust. You say that the government is already investigated enough, but I would contend that it's really the government investigating itself. If there is a separate, independent agency that investigates government and employee malfeasance, then at least there can be some check, accountability, an…

So IRS employees are now magically exempt from making mistakes in life, just because they're IRS employees? I think it's good that the rate of delinquency is lower for IRS employees, but I think expecting it to be zero is a bit much.

But sure, that should be fixed. Just like the 5% of other workers who should get their tax situation in hand. Just like how all the private citizens who are delinquent should get their tax situation in hand.

I'm not really sure how this oversight agency you advocate would even work. How would it be independent? Who would fund it? How would you ensure that its members aren't biased or influenced in any way? Ultimately these sorts of agencies are staffed by real humans, not automatons with perfect, disinterested software. I agree with the desire for this sort of thing, but I don't think it's at all practical.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#96

Post by BLKNSLVR »

Quekid5 wrote: post #73
giantg2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, most successfully stopped attacks are secret. Nobody would even know.

There are or should be at least (bound by national security related laws) oversight review committees and stats reporting... ... but of course it depends on the standard for what 'prevented' means. De-radicalized a potential terrorist, does that mean a terror attack was stopped/prevented. It's quite complicated in practice, alas.

I mean, aren't they quite busy radicalising the mentally ill just so they can then capture the mark in the process of following the plan they developed for them just so they bump up their 'terrorist plan foiled' stats?

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#97

Post by dylan604 »

smeeth wrote: post #41

A clarification, because I'm seeing a lot of misunderstanding: This is about whether or not the FBI needs a warrant to see information that was already collected legally by another part of the gov't. This is not about whether or not the gov't can collect this specific data in the first place, everyone involved seems to agree they do.

The people having the data collected are also involved and I doubt they agree

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#98

Post by gottorf »

quesera wrote: post #67
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are allowed to be mad at a ruling you cannot change. Just don’t drag me into your feelings. Maybe it is overruled someday, that’s pretty rare. Maybe you can point to another amendment that made it almost 250 before being interpreted to say something, it does not?

I'm not mad at all. I have no feelings on the issue whatsoever, honestly. But you're also wrong if you think there's meaningful precedent. And BTW the entire Bill of Rights is the same age. All are subject to interpretation by the sitting Court. ... FWIW, I would place 2A lowest on my list of important entries in the BoR though. They're all important because if one is threatened then they are all threatened, but I th…

> the frankly asinine idea that it's insurance against government overreach

Why is it asinine? It is precisely intended to be the insurance of last resort against a government that turns tyrannical. If your claim is that the might of the US military is so overwhelming that a bunch of rednecks toting AR-15s could be of no match, well, Vietnam and Afghanistan both proved that a determined and armed population is actually quite hard to conquer even for the foremost military power.

The presence of "that guy" doesn't invalidate any Constitutional right. Neo-Nazis wanting to march through Skokie is "those guys" taking the 1st Amendment to the absurd. You could say that the Miranda warning arose as a result of "those guys" defense attorneys taking the 5th amendment to the absurd. They are all still rights held by the people.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#99

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

gottorf wrote: post #98
quesera wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not mad at all. I have no feelings on the issue whatsoever, honestly. But you're also wrong if you think there's meaningful precedent. And BTW the entire Bill of Rights is the same age. All are subject to interpretation by the sitting Court. ... FWIW, I would place 2A lowest on my list of important entries in the BoR though. They're all important because if one is threatened then they are all threatened, but I th…

> the frankly asinine idea that it's insurance against government overreach Why is it asinine? It is precisely intended to be the insurance of last resort against a government that turns tyrannical. If your claim is that the might of the US military is so overwhelming that a bunch of rednecks toting AR-15s could be of no match, well, Vietnam and Afghanistan both proved that a determined and armed population is actual…

It's almost not worth trying to explain it. Some people are wired in a way that makes taking care of their own fate terrifying and they're extremely happy to outsource that to a government they know full well to be inefficient and ineffective.

*Tanks and drones don't stand on street corners.* F18s can't enforce a curfew. No amount of equipment is going to control a population. We've seen it over. Now all of that is putting aside that anyone seriously thinks our military wouldn't crumble in a second if directed internally? They're reeling from kicking kids out that didn't want covid shots and failing to recruit, watch what happens when even Career Srgt Bootlicker is asked to open fire on a street that looks just like his back home.

I'm not interested in entertaining the idea I need firearms to stop the US military. I'm cautious I would need to protect mine against the people that would support something like that.

Re: FBI director admits they rarely have probable cause for using NSA collections

#100

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #85
giantg2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, most successfully stopped attacks are secret. Nobody would even know.

Are they? Sounds like a BS theory, promoted to make them sound secretly more competent than they are ("we're great and stop a lot of attacks, we just aren't telling you". Yeah, right). The truth is that even a minor succesfully stopped attack they'd advertise till the end of time, to score political and press points.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN