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

The Criminal N.S.A.

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 116 posts

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#31

Post by Uhhrrr »

anigbrowl wrote: post #23
dllthomas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I object to the government breaking the law against me, it's not "a political matter" - indeed, usually the courts are the appropriate venue.

You're not in a position to make that determination, and the judicial branch has traditionally taken a different view of this from yours. The question was whether people could sue, not whether they should be able to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question

It looks like "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it" doesn't apply here. The 4th amendment clearly applies to the question of whether the government should be recording your mother's phone calls.

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#32

Post by tkahn6 »

jacoblyles wrote: post #29
tkahn6 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if that was the only headline or angle the NY Times displayed on the front page about that story as that story evolved. C'mon man.

Do you think that's an appropriate headline for the breaking front-page story about the scandal for an ostensibly objective news organization?

No, I don't think that would be an appropriate headline in that case. But that is somewhat of a red herring/straw man since I am sincerely doubtful that was the first headline they put up. More likely that came a day or two after the story broke. And in that case, it would be appropriate.

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#33

Post by anigbrowl »

Uhhrrr wrote: post #31
anigbrowl wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not in a position to make that determination, and the judicial branch has traditionally taken a different view of this from yours. The question was whether people could sue, not whether they should be able to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question

It looks like "lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it" doesn't apply here. The 4th amendment clearly applies to the question of whether the government should be recording your mother's phone calls.

Read Smith v. Maryland and get back to me. The issue of standing is more complex, and lies along a philosophical fault line about the role of the judiciary; I refer you to this law review article for an overview of those issues: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#34

Post by anigbrowl »

andrewljohnson wrote: post #30
anigbrowl wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not in a position to make that determination, and the judicial branch has traditionally taken a different view of this from yours. The question was whether people could sue, not whether they should be able to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question

How are you construing an unconstitutional surveillance program as a political question? I don't see how any of the Court Cases listed on the wikipedia article are relevant. These all seem to relate to truly political things, like which branch has what authority, or how districts are apportioned. The article only cites 5 areas the courts have clear precedent on - wars, treaties, gerrymandering, impeachment, as well a…

I'm not all that sure it is unconstitutional, for one thing - aren't you begging the question here? And on a more general level, shouldn't you be considering precedent on justiciability, rather than basing your whole argument on your personal opinion of the waht the constitution means?

I might note in asssing that I favor a constitutional amendment that would create an explicit right to privacy; I'm not in favor of a surveillance state. But that doesn't alter my skepticism about how a class action lawsuit would actually fare in the courts.

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#35

Post by logn »

It's criminal and people should go to prison. When we talk about locking people up forever because they're a threat to society, I can't think of a better example than this.

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#37

Post by mtgx »

Here's the thing. If file-sharers have the right to anonymous speech, what does that say about everyone being spied upon by the NSA?

http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-have-right-to-anonymous...

I'm starting to think more and more that beyond this being a US Constitution issue, it's a human rights issue, and we should fight to ban all such spying internationally. Yes, I realize how hard that that may be to achieve, and how long it would probably take, but we need to do it because it's the right thing for humanity, not because it's easy or hard, just like everyone is fighting for gay marriage all over the world, and have fought for free speech, and so on.

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#38

Post by jacoblyles »

tkahn6 wrote: post #32
jacoblyles wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that's an appropriate headline for the breaking front-page story about the scandal for an ostensibly objective news organization?

No, I don't think that would be an appropriate headline in that case. But that is somewhat of a red herring/straw man since I am sincerely doubtful that was the first headline they put up. More likely that came a day or two after the story broke. And in that case, it would be appropriate.

That's a headline from Sunday May 12th, which I believe is the first story on it in the Times. The information first came to light at a press conference by Lois Lerner on May 10th and I don't see another NY Times article sandwiched between the dates. The headline did not go unremarked in conservative media[1].

There is no doubt in my mind which team the NY Times is batting for.

[1]http://twitchy.com/2013/05/13/thats-the-story-jaw-dropping-n...

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#39

Post by h0w412d »

mtgx wrote: post #37

Here's the thing. If file-sharers have the right to anonymous speech , what does that say about everyone being spied upon by the NSA? http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharers-have-right-to-anonymous... I'm starting to think more and more that beyond this being a US Constitution issue, it's a human rights issue, and we should fight to ban all such spying internationally. Yes, I realize how hard that that may be to achieve…

How about we popularize encryption, and take the choice out of the hands of corporations and governments?

Re: The Criminal N.S.A.

#40

Post by fragsworth »

The blowback from this mess could very soon be more severe than everyone might think. I expect several foreign countries to ban American tech company operations in their jurisdictions.

The bans in the foreign nations could easily stem from foreign business owners pressuring their politicians to ban American-operated companies under the guise of national security, privacy, and anti-American-power-mongering, but their real motivation will be to gain market share. Their politicians can easily make it into a win-win for everyone involved - the politicians (campaign contributions), the local businesses (market share), and the population, who wouldn't mind seeing a global anti-America movement.

Post reply on HN