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

111–120 of 140 posts

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

#111

Post by appleskeptic »

jpk wrote: post #28
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…

You seem to be arguing that we have a system where theft and bribery are necessary in some way, and therefore we shouldn't prosecute it aggressively. Wouldn't we rather reform the system such that it makes theft and bribery less attractive?

No, I’m saying the definition of bribery has been stretched so far to include ballpoint pens, a $30 lunch or free attendance at a conference, at the same time that high officials are underpaid, so as to place an absurd financial burden on middle-class people holding high office. No one says that a CEO who meets a potential supplier who buys him lunch is being bribed. But if a politician does that, it’s a crime somehow. Frankly absurd.

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

#112

Post by RajT88 »

RajT88 wrote: post #106
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Prior to 2008 it was. New SCOTUS precedent doesn't magically change the past. It really wasn't. Had Miller not be basically defaulted on by death, but decided anyhow... this would have been clear earlier. Just because you don't like it - never made it any less of an individual right... You know, the second one in the section where all the other individual civil rights are - or was that an organizing mistake on their…

You have to have a paid account to read the 1766 version of it, but here you go: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/regulated_adj?tab=meaning_and... But that is besides the point. Do me a favor and read the definition of Militia as writ in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Then give the Second Amendment another read, since that is what it is referring to with the usage of the word "Militia". Then go read the Milit…

Now - if I needed more to support my point (which any honest reading would make clear that I don't), you can have a look at the influence the Federalist Society had on the Heller case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society#District_of...

Note the 2 members of the society who voted on Heller, and the extra ones which currently sit on the court. And also note the 2 additional members who have some sympathetic relationship to the group although are not explicitly mentioned as members. That gets you 4/5 of the 5 votes on Heller. 5 sitting SCOTUS as of this writing.

QED, Heller was highly partisan and a break from hundreds of years of precedent. You'd be hard pressed to make an honest case otherwise.

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

#113

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

RajT88 wrote: post #112
RajT88 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to have a paid account to read the 1766 version of it, but here you go: https://www.oed.com/dictionary/regulated_adj?tab=meaning_and... But that is besides the point. Do me a favor and read the definition of Militia as writ in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. Then give the Second Amendment another read, since that is what it is referring to with the usage of the word "Militia". Then go read the Milit…

Now - if I needed more to support my point (which any honest reading would make clear that I don't), you can have a look at the influence the Federalist Society had on the Heller case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society#District_of... Note the 2 members of the society who voted on Heller, and the extra ones which currently sit on the court. And also note the 2 additional members who have some sympatheti…

You can post revisionist nonsense “interpreted” and put up by people with agendas all you like. I posted time piece quotes.

Best of all I don’t care. You can stomp your feet, it doesn’t change the law or history.

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

#114

Post by RajT88 »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #113
RajT88 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now - if I needed more to support my point (which any honest reading would make clear that I don't), you can have a look at the influence the Federalist Society had on the Heller case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society#District_of... Note the 2 members of the society who voted on Heller, and the extra ones which currently sit on the court. And also note the 2 additional members who have some sympatheti…

You can post revisionist nonsense “interpreted” and put up by people with agendas all you like. I posted time piece quotes. Best of all I don’t care. You can stomp your feet, it doesn’t change the law or history.

Back at you buddy.

Bye, Felicia.

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

#115

Post by hsbauauvhabzb »

moehm wrote: post #93
smegsicle wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Shortly followed by ‘thoughts and prayers’.

Most other countries probably have far less legal and/or ethically grey surveillance at their fingertips, and still dont have this problem.

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

#116

Post by aa-jv »

Teever wrote: post #13
xt00 wrote: post #4

The acid test for this is, if its OK for the FBI to spy on you as a citizen, then cool, we need the right to spy on the FBI agent and his family members -- why does he get to spy on me and my family members when there is zero reason for them to do that? I don't have anything to hide, and neither should he, so its all kosher right?

I agree with this one hundred percent. I wish there was some sort of organization that coordinated OSINT efforts on law enforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance

Don't worry. The grass roots have got this ..

https://www.youtube.com/@AuditTheAudit

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

#117

Post by coldtea »

kelnos wrote: post #91
pauldenton wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

>Yes, they did the best they could at the time

I'd say even that is debatable.

Perhaps they did do the best THEY could, not the best that could be done even given the ideas already around at the time.

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

#118

Post by Amezarak »

kelnos wrote: post #91
pauldenton wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

It's worth mentioning that individuals could legally (and some did) own cannons and warships back then as well - it wasn't limited to muskets. The reference in the Constitution to "letters of marque and reprisal" refer to government licenses to attack and capture ships, ie a government license to be a pirate.

> 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.

It would not be reasonable to expect that. It's hard for most modern people to understand to what extent a gun was considered a necessary tool for non-urban people, which was a much larger proportion of the population.

The real problem we've run into is cultural. Americans used to run around with actual TOMMY GUNS without mass shootings. It's absolutely insane to think about how easily these people - many of them involved in criminal rings - could have killed hundreds of people if they had woke up one day and decided to. But they didn't.

Now we live in a broken and depraved culture and limiting gun access is about the only obvious tool we have to reduce the problem, or at least that symptom of it.

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

#119

Post by giantg2 »

sargun wrote: post #82
giantg2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would we keep them secret forever?

Probably not forever, but until the systems/methods they used become obsolete. You don't burn your intel collection mechanisms to publicize something that the public was never aware of in the fist place.

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

#120

Post by PawgerZ »

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.

You really are the "quintessential affable sales person." With the way you twist narratives, I suspect you sell a lot of networking equipment.
Post reply on HN