Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them • Hacker News Board

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#81

Post by nwzpaperman » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:01 AM UTC

skore wrote: post #77

nwzpaperman wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulated campaign finance...who writes the rules? The problem is fundamental to the structure and it is inevitable that, over time, every government becomes tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson made it clear for the ages, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Governments are of man and man is prone to taking advantage of and abusing his or her peers. "When the peop…

> Regulated campaign finance...who writes the rules? Ideally, > the people I think the "people -> government" relationship is broken in the US and I'm not sure whether all the "blood of patriots and tyrants" talk helps or hurts that.

Well, the US is a Republic and not a democracy. Even in the case of a direct democracy, should we have 50.1% deciding for the 100%? If only it were a trivial game it would be an easy answer!

Quoting Jefferson isn't a call to action, but a call to remember those words, the context and the inspiration. It's insightful to remember that Jefferson was the founder of a third-party known as the Democratic-Republicans.

As much as people think the world is different, the difference is really only technologically. Instead of stealing horses, people steal cars. Instead of bootlegging liquor, people run marijuana.

Instead of slave masters, we have human resources.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#82

Post by belorn » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:16 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #59

Shivetya wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real tragedy is the free pass the press gives him, if Bush had pulled this, the drone hits, fast and furious, and more, we would have at least had the press on our side. I can, but don't have to accept, members of his own party turning a blind eye, I will never accept a press which has.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan#Stati... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal#2006.E2.... Note the dates. In fairness to the press, it's not surprising that the firs 5 years of drone strikes received little press coverage, because we had become involved in a much larger war in Iraq. I'm somewhat tolerant of drone strikes; all told they seem to have killed about 3,200 people at th…

It still doesnt make it right, nor is it any sane or logic reasoning behind the drone use.

Ever time I hear someone explain the wars as an legit response to the 9/11 attack, it sounds as an "excuse" a kid would make after a school massacre. Oh look he say, there was this evil kid who hit and kicked me that other day, so I took my dads machine gun and extracted my revenged. The other children and teachers sheltered that bully, so they deserved what they got. It was justice, he said.

There are no sane reasoning behind such claim. There are also no sane reasoning behind any claimed connection between 9/11 and the current wars or drone usage. I understand that the kid received a great injustice from the bully. I can understand the need for revenge. 9/11 was also a great injustice where people craved for revenge. But sanity left quick after, and we got schools with dead bodies and two wars. That, and drones.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#83

Post by skore » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:19 AM UTC

nwzpaperman wrote: post #81

skore wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulated campaign finance...who writes the rules? Ideally, > the people I think the "people -> government" relationship is broken in the US and I'm not sure whether all the "blood of patriots and tyrants" talk helps or hurts that.

Well, the US is a Republic and not a democracy. Even in the case of a direct democracy, should we have 50.1% deciding for the 100%? If only it were a trivial game it would be an easy answer! Quoting Jefferson isn't a call to action, but a call to remember those words, the context and the inspiration. It's insightful to remember that Jefferson was the founder of a third-party known as the Democratic-Republicans. As mu…

Ah ok, I had the slight impression that you didn't want to discuss this and instead just voice your opinion. Confirmed and noted.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#84

Post by foobarqux » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:22 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #65

Shivetya wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real tragedy is the free pass the press gives him, if Bush had pulled this, the drone hits, fast and furious, and more, we would have at least had the press on our side. I can, but don't have to accept, members of his own party turning a blind eye, I will never accept a press which has.

Are we talking about the same press that cheer-led us into the Iraq war? And on a macro scale--the same press that has basically deified Ronald Reagan? The American press has never been opposed to blowing up foreigners, because Americans believe it is our god-given right to blow up foreigners. This is true regardless of what party is in power. To the extent that there is opposition, it is rooted solely on the impact…

The press don't care because of structural reasons not because of a belief system common to Americans. Press reporting is systemically biased in favor of powerful interests that influence them by carrot and by stick.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#85

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:24 AM UTC

jholman wrote: post #74

anigbrowl wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not wrong, and you have misunderstood my claim. See the judgment at https://www.eff.org/document/nsl-ruling-march-14-2013 Page 2, lines 11-13.

I'm trying to understand your claim here. If I understand correctly, the sequences of events is like this: A) FBI issues NSL to ISP, demanding information, and prohibiting disclosure. B) ISP starts a proceeding challenging constitutionality of gag C) FBI starts a separate proceeding reasserting validing of gag D?) Wired also claims that the FBI claimed that step B violated the law, but I don't see that in the ruling…

IANAL or a procedural expert, and more importantly I have not read all the filings so far, but my understanding is that the tension between steps B and C goes like this:

B) ISP files suit, argues 'this ain't constitutional, we shouldn't have to comply.' DoJ disagrees.

C) FBI counter-files, asserting that even if ISP prevails in step B), it should comply in the meantime rather than temporize pending the outcome. I can understand why they would, since they may in good faith consider time to be of the essence in obtaining the information they seek - which is part of their job, after all.

I'm not that troubled by D, insofar as undercover operations realistically require a degree of secrecy. What was troubling about the NSL regime was that it asserted this secrecy by default; I expect that in the future the government will still get NSLs but will first go through something like the FISA court and essentially ask a court for a gag order, presenting evidence under seal. This is IMHO how it ought to have been from the start.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#86

Post by Steko » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:26 AM UTC

jacoblyles wrote: post #50

sixQuarks wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is not affiliated with either party, I really don't get Obama supporters. He was supposed to bring change to the white house, instead, he has expanded Bush-era secrecy and has eroded our civil liberties even further... and not a peep from his support base. In my view, democrats are the lesser of two evils, but I'm just surprised that nothing has been done about this.

I'm in the business of building things that have never been done before, so I value economic freedom and good governance and my estimate of the lesser of two evils goes the other way. But it's sad that we get no civil liberties either way (unless people like Rand Paul get their way).

"I'm in the business of building things that have never been done before,"

If only the government would get out of the hero entrepreneur's way so he and his fellow Bay Area/Boston/Chinese/Indian/Nordic/Eastern European/ engineers could bring their unique vision to life.

"I value economic freedom"

For today's GOP "economic freedom" translates to lower taxes for rich people, carte blanche to piss in the pool, and closing economic doors for the less fortunate.

"good governance "

Turning the government over to lobbyists, destroying public education, weakening clean air and water standards, ignoring global warming, starting pointless wars, neo-creationism, disenfranchising hard fought voting rights, monetary crankism, opposing any and all reasonable regulation of firearms, etc. None of these sound remotely like "good governance". The Democrats are no saints but the modern GOP is repugnant on many fronts.

"But it's sad that we get no civil liberties either way (unless people like Rand Paul get their way)."

As bad as Obama is on civil liberties he stopped torture that went on under GOP and he tried to close Guantanamo but was prevented by the GOP. At the end of the day, presidents of all parties tend to vote for more executive power. For the parties themselves, it's progressives that have been the best defenders of civil liberties and that can be seen clearly in something like the Patriot Act votes.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#87

Post by doki_pen » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:31 AM UTC

r00fus wrote: post #36

sixQuarks wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is not affiliated with either party, I really don't get Obama supporters. He was supposed to bring change to the white house, instead, he has expanded Bush-era secrecy and has eroded our civil liberties even further... and not a peep from his support base. In my view, democrats are the lesser of two evils, but I'm just surprised that nothing has been done about this.

The depressing part is realizing that Obama is actually the lesser of two evils (two elections running), and that worse could be happening right now in terms of rights erosion and increase in security-state. There is no left-wing remaining in power in this country. You only have corporatists and reactionary extremists corporatists.

When was that ever not the case? Even FDR, the most socialist president we ever had, implemented the extremely regressive Social Security taxes.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#88

Post by doki_pen » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:32 AM UTC

nwzpaperman wrote: post #81

skore wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regulated campaign finance...who writes the rules? Ideally, > the people I think the "people -> government" relationship is broken in the US and I'm not sure whether all the "blood of patriots and tyrants" talk helps or hurts that.

Well, the US is a Republic and not a democracy. Even in the case of a direct democracy, should we have 50.1% deciding for the 100%? If only it were a trivial game it would be an easy answer! Quoting Jefferson isn't a call to action, but a call to remember those words, the context and the inspiration. It's insightful to remember that Jefferson was the founder of a third-party known as the Democratic-Republicans. As mu…

I republic is a form of democracy. There is no such thing as a pure democracy, so making that distinction is a little meaningless.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#89

Post by skore » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:36 AM UTC

doki_pen wrote: post #88

nwzpaperman wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the US is a Republic and not a democracy. Even in the case of a direct democracy, should we have 50.1% deciding for the 100%? If only it were a trivial game it would be an easy answer! Quoting Jefferson isn't a call to action, but a call to remember those words, the context and the inspiration. It's insightful to remember that Jefferson was the founder of a third-party known as the Democratic-Republicans. As mu…

I republic is a form of democracy. There is no such thing as a pure democracy, so making that distinction is a little meaningless.

I upvoted you, but while we are nitpicking: "a little meaningless" is quite like saying "a little pregnant" ;-)

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#90

Post by wnight » Sat, Mar 16, 2013, 2:38 AM UTC

anigbrowl wrote: post #51

Osiris wrote: post #9

One of the main points of the U.S. constitution is to provide checks and balances so that one branch of government cannot ac t unilaterally without oversight. For the executive branch to argue that in this case there is no way to challenge it is disingenuous at best and at worst, as this judge pointed out, unconstitutional. It's frustrating to me as a citizen that if a government agency decides it has a problem with…

Realistically, you are just as screwed if any large organization launches a civil suit against you. Congress frequently produces laws that attempt to mandate the behavior of the Executive branch* while excluding that behavior from judicial review (which courts do not take kindly to and frequently dismiss). A lot of legislators do not like the Judicial branch and consider it to be an annoying restraint on their lawmak…

And (a) explicitly not constitutional in that it attempts to bypass the limits knowingly placed upon government by the people. An order to bypass auditors is never valid, especially from government.

That you think this is okay is scary. But this is why we need to remember that the law is an imperfect rendering of our intent, not the other way around.