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

On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

anarchism.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 230 posts

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#61

Post by ChuckMcM »

ef4 wrote: post #48
tptacek wrote: post #24

How, in short, is this shit valid under the U.S. Bill of Rights? I’d really like someone to explain that to me. With a straight face. Preferably without making me want to punch them in the process. Well, he's going to want to punch me, but here's what I think(?) the answer is: (a) He's not a US person, but instead a well-known citizen of Iceland, living abroad, and is thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment, at le…

The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.

If you have the time, I really really recommend listening to the "Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights" [1] which is available from The Great Courses (and the Sunnyvale library, possibly a library near you as well) It is an excellent introduction into how the systems works (or doesn't work) and how it evolves the interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to citizens and noncitizens alike.

[1] http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.asp...

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#62

Post by gohrt »

randallsquared wrote: post #55
ef4 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.

Some of the bill of rights is that, and some clearly refers to things protecting "the people". I am no constitutional scholar, but this does seem to indicate that those specific rights are rights that are intended to apply to citizens of the US.

people lawfully present in the US, not just citizens.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#63

Post by tptacek »

rgbrenner wrote: post #59
ef4 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.

No, tptacek is right... if you are a foreigner living abroad, the bill of rights does not apply to you: In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners rem…

It's also pretty hard to argue that prior to 1957, anyone in the USG needed to get a warrant to collect intelligence information from foreign soil.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#64

Post by tptacek »

gohrt wrote: post #62
randallsquared wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the bill of rights is that, and some clearly refers to things protecting "the people". I am no constitutional scholar, but this does seem to indicate that those specific rights are rights that are intended to apply to citizens of the US.

people lawfully present in the US, not just citizens.

My understanding as well; noncitizens on US soil are protected by the Fourth Amendment; outside of actual border crossings, the USG cannot search them without a warrant or probable cause.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#65

Post by charonn0 »

ef4 wrote: post #48
tptacek wrote: post #24

How, in short, is this shit valid under the U.S. Bill of Rights? I’d really like someone to explain that to me. With a straight face. Preferably without making me want to punch them in the process. Well, he's going to want to punch me, but here's what I think(?) the answer is: (a) He's not a US person, but instead a well-known citizen of Iceland, living abroad, and is thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment, at le…

The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.

While I would prefer your stance to be correct, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution applies only to persons within the USA. For example, Downes v. Bidwell found that "the Constitution does not apply to foreign countries [...]" [1] and that it doesn't apply to US Citizens if they are outside of the US, "[the] Constitution can have no operation in another country." [2]

[1]: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vo...

[2]: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/140/453/case.htm...

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#66

Post by nsomaru »

tptacek wrote: post #24

How, in short, is this shit valid under the U.S. Bill of Rights? I’d really like someone to explain that to me. With a straight face. Preferably without making me want to punch them in the process. Well, he's going to want to punch me, but here's what I think(?) the answer is: (a) He's not a US person, but instead a well-known citizen of Iceland, living abroad, and is thus not protected by the Fourth Amendment, at le…

Regarding (a) --- I don't understand how this argument that the constitution of a country (which represents its highest thoughts and ideals) can be applied selectively (i.e., only to citizens). If the thoughts contained therein regarding the rights of human beings are indeed 'True', then surely they should apply to all human beings?

If the US insists on waiving the rights of non-citizens, despite the constitution, then it should also accept that it cannot prosecute any non-citizen for non compliance with its laws because they were not afforded the same rights.

Gotta have both sides of the coin.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#67

Post by gohrt »

signed0 wrote: post #21
mtgx wrote: post #13

They keep the deleted e-mails too? So even if you want to escape that 180 days law that says after 180 days it's free for all for authorities to get your e-mails, then deleting them before that time passes won't do you much good. So basically the authorities will have access to your e-mails anyway. It's just that they won't get them in the first 180 days. And of course this just applies to police/FBI, as NSA can get…

Not necessarily. Just because the government asks for them doesn't mean they exist. I'd be surprised if they were actually deleted though.

Google doesn't 100% say that the data is totally totally gone, but seems to say that it is no longer indexed for lookup by your accounr, after 60days after deletion: https://support.google.com/mail/answer/7401?hl=en

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#68

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #64
gohrt wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

people lawfully present in the US, not just citizens.

My understanding as well; noncitizens on US soil are protected by the Fourth Amendment; outside of actual border crossings, the USG cannot search them without a warrant or probable cause.

[deleted]

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#69

Post by gohrt »

andrewljohnson wrote: post #19

Google should invent a distributed, encrypted email protocol and make that network an option in GMail for storage and message sending. That would be a great PR move - if there is no central server, and no central message pipe, it's a little hard for anyone to think Google wants to be complicit in spying.

That wouldn't be Gmail in any sense. Why would google be involved in that product -- they dont' provide the server, the delivery, the spam detection (right?)

If you dont want to use Gmail for some or all messages, just don't use Gmail.

Re: On Confirmed Assumptions or, Not Trusting Google is a Good Idea

#70

Post by rgbrenner »

rgbrenner wrote: post #59
ef4 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal theory that the bill of rights only applies to US citizens is dangerous and wrong. It applies to actions of the United States government. It is a list of things they may not do.

No, tptacek is right... if you are a foreigner living abroad, the bill of rights does not apply to you: In 1957, the court changed its position, overturning decades of precedent to declare that American citizens are in fact protected against U.S. government misbehavior by the Bill of Rights even outside the country. Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the court limited its ruling to U.S. citizens. Foreigners rem…

I found the actual case.. if anyone wants to read more, it was Reid vs Covert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354...

Post reply on HN