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

121–130 of 140 posts

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

#121

Post by giantg2 »

ofslidingfeet wrote: post #79
giantg2 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No they're not. If our bloated "national security" apparatus could possibly justify its existence, it would. The reason they keep such justification secret is because it doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with "sources and methods." It has nothing to do with "civil unrest." The reason we can't see the justification is because it doesn't exist.

They don't tell you because they don't feel the need to justify it to you. They do tell some of it individuals with the proper clearances who hold some level of power over them (comittees etc).

Here is a small list of the ones that were publicized. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrori...

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

#122

Post by giantg2 »

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.

You don't burn your methods and systems for some political points.

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

#123

Post by ofslidingfeet »

giantg2 wrote: post #121
ofslidingfeet wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they're not. If our bloated "national security" apparatus could possibly justify its existence, it would. The reason they keep such justification secret is because it doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with "sources and methods." It has nothing to do with "civil unrest." The reason we can't see the justification is because it doesn't exist.

They don't tell you because they don't feel the need to justify it to you. They do tell some of it individuals with the proper clearances who hold some level of power over them (comittees etc). Here is a small list of the ones that were publicized. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrori...

Laughable. This list substantiates my point.

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

#124

Post by hellojesus »

tehjoker wrote: post #60
progne wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fourth amendment is a de jure ban, and shouldn't a de jure ban be a de facto ban for law enforcement? The lawful way to make it de facto is to make it de jure first by repealing that pesky amendment.

The US government flouts the constitution constantly, for example the UN charter which according to the constitution, treaties are part of the supreme law of the land. It's a security state designed to squelch popular resistance to a global imperial project (that is currently floundering).

Yes, but treaties are still subjugate to the Constitution. Congress isn't authorized to violate the constitution, amd thetefore isn't authorized to enter into treaties which would do so.

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

#125

Post by hellojesus »

coldtea wrote: post #84
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

Not sure what the relevance of the above is. As I already said, people who say either of those are making a bad disingenuous argument. I'm not saying either of those though, and didn't in my comment you responded to. I said that people who say a "well regulated militia" is not the same as "random individual who likes guns" are making an argument exactly in the intended spirit of the constitution. Nothing to do with a…

The document from 4 centuries ago outlined a process for its continual refactoring, and the process has often been used since its passage.

All we have to do is ammend the Constitution, and the entire 2A debate could easily be settled.

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

#126

Post by jfengel »

chrononaut wrote: post #81
jfengel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Settled" means that it's never, ever going to change, because the composition of the court isn't going to change. At least not during my lifetime, and probably not yours. It doesn't matter whether it's "justified". The Constitution means what five people on the Court say it means. And if that comes from talking to James Madison on the ouija board, the rest of us have to live with it. In that sense, it's "settled". A…

> because the composition of the court isn't going to change. At least not during my lifetime, and probably not yours. Why not? The age of the justices in order from oldest to youngest is 75, 73, 69, 68, 63, 58, 56, 53, 51. Even if you're 60 or older you have a pretty good chance of seeing the composition change.

Of the four court members under 60, three are conservative.

Of the remaining five members, it takes only two conservatives to ensure that the court remains that way. Assuming that future nominations are equally distributed, there's about a 2/3 chance that at least two will be conservative.

And let's just say that I don't think it will be randomly distributed. The existing court composition has a thumb on the scale of future nominees. The party that nominates conservative judges has won only one election outright this century, but until recently only one opposing candidate had been able to win -- including once because the Supreme Court directly stepped in.

It's harder to calculate just what that means, but I think it's sufficient to affirm that the odds are very long against being able to generally reverse this court's direction before Halley's Comet returns.

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

#127

Post by hellojesus »

kelnos wrote: post #94
underseacables wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree. Of all the legal proceedings against Don, this is the most appropriate imo.

But... There is one thing that gives me pause about the Biden case. It is understood that Hunter had some capacity of access to the home [1]. Likely this overlapped with his hard drug and prostitute lifestyle. What are the chances that a state sponsored person managed entry to the house with Hunter and then had free reign of it while he slept or was in a drugged state? Does this factor into the risk assessment of the forgotten documents and culpability of Joe?

I admit I'm biased as I don't like Joe, so would prefer he is a one term president.

[1] https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-joe-biden-classified-d...

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

#128

Post by hellojesus »

bunabhucan wrote: post #42
underseacables wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

One is being charged with obstruction and retaining documents. There's no evidence of obstruction for Biden or Pence. If either of them told their attorney to "hide or destroy" documents then they would be receiving the same treatment.

Yet Hillary did both as was not prosecuted.

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

#129

Post by giantg2 »

ofslidingfeet wrote: post #123
giantg2 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't tell you because they don't feel the need to justify it to you. They do tell some of it individuals with the proper clearances who hold some level of power over them (comittees etc). Here is a small list of the ones that were publicized. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrori...

Laughable. This list substantiates my point.

What is laughable about that list?

It doesn't really speak to or against your point. You're not going to justify an entire national security system on a subset of one of its many functions.

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

#130

Post by account42 »

giantg2 wrote: post #121
ofslidingfeet wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they're not. If our bloated "national security" apparatus could possibly justify its existence, it would. The reason they keep such justification secret is because it doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with "sources and methods." It has nothing to do with "civil unrest." The reason we can't see the justification is because it doesn't exist.

They don't tell you because they don't feel the need to justify it to you. They do tell some of it individuals with the proper clearances who hold some level of power over them (comittees etc). Here is a small list of the ones that were publicized. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsuccessful_terrori...

> they don't feel the need to justify it to you

Yes, that is the primary problem with spy agencies - that they don't feel accountable. They SHOULD be.

Post reply on HN