Live data from Hacker News

Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

eff.org

71–80 of 143 posts

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#71
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the FISA decided that the NSA's activities were illegal, why would it keep rubber-stamping the warrants? First, I don't agree that they rubber-stamp warrants, but believe they evaluate them on a case-by-case basis - not least because their decisions might be classified now, but may well be declassified in the future, and their reasoning will be held up to scrutiny. More importantly, just because an agency is found…

They don't rubber stamp warrants because there are no warrants . See the XKEYSCORE presentation. They just need a loose reason that the person may or may not be affiliated with a foreign entity by up to five degrees of separation.

Your argument is with the GP, not with me.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed. In the US there have been other parties that have put presidents in office (Theodore Wilson was a Progressive Party candidate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_State... ) and in the UK, which also has a first-past-the-post system, there are multiple parties and the country is currently governed by a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. FPTP certainly makes 2-party…

> In the US there have been other parties that have put presidents in office There have never been more than two nationally-competitive parties in the US. There have been times when a party collapsed and subsequently was replaced (the Federalists by the Whigs, and the Whigs by the Republicans.) > Theodore Wilson was a Progressive Party candidate Presumably, you mean (former) President Theodore Roosevelt , who, formed…

Also, gerrymandering. It's a major, major factor in maintaining the status quo. The UK has picked up on this trend (well, they've done it before, but it's kicked up a notch), and the conservatives been quietly moving parliamentary boundaries for the last few years.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#73

As I referenced in another thread, Obama himself voted for the FISA amendment[1]. How clearer must it get that people working for companies like AT&T and Booz Allen are complicit in receiving monetary remuneration for collaborating with various arms of the government in circumventing/intel laundering/routing around the laws and regulations said arms of the government were to be checking each other against? Must there…

I don't think the world is so black and white. If you pay taxes to the federal government are you complicit with all of the government's actions? Well sure, but what other option do you have? You could not pay taxes and go to jail, or you could move somewhere else where there isn't an imperfect government--- say Antarctica. Similarly, what are you going to do if you decide not to work for some "complicit" organizatio…

I never said anything was black and white, just that a very large amount of people have become complicit in what they acknowledge as wrong-doings.

As to working within the system, attempting to halt or mitigate what you view as malfeasance is indeed not complying. Merely suggesting though, that people are working within doesn't do much in the face of the number of those working for without care or question.

Yes people have to make the choice of being complicit or face going to jail in some cases. Most just need to stop defending their profiting from the murder/kidnapping/torture/rendition/detention/prosecution of others. Providing infrastructural support like telecommunications is indeed an enabler for industries like drone warfare.

It's called "The World" as you put it.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#74

At a point in our nation's early history, we decided to trust Constitutional interpretation to the Supreme Court. There were cons to that decision - the Constitution is our social contract and thus it's interpretation is ultimately up to the people - but on the whole I think it was a good one. But, if for whatever reason, this Judicial review cannot occur - whether that be willful avoidance by the DEA for "Parallel C…

The people are trusted with the interpretation of Constitutionality and government legitimacy through Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 1, Article I, Section 3, Paragraph I (as amended), Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution, Article VI of the Constitution, The First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution.

Exactly. The doctrine of judicial review wasn't even part of the original plan.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US there have been other parties that have put presidents in office There have never been more than two nationally-competitive parties in the US. There have been times when a party collapsed and subsequently was replaced (the Federalists by the Whigs, and the Whigs by the Republicans.) > Theodore Wilson was a Progressive Party candidate Presumably, you mean (former) President Theodore Roosevelt , who, formed…

Theodore Roosevelt indeed - I jammed his name together with Woodrow Wilson, his Democratic opponent. Wilson beat him handily, but Roosevelt still outpolled the GOP candidate, WH Taft. You are quite right about the key difference with the US having an elected executive vs the parliamentary democacy system of the UK, but I don't see how FPTP prevent the election of Congressional candidates from outside the two major pa…

> I don't see how FPTP prevent the election of Congressional candidates from outside the two major parties.

It doesn't prevent it, it just makes it extremely rare. The reason is, essentially, Tragedy of the Commons: for each individual voter, the most strongest result from voting for a minor party candidate rather than the least-opposed major party candidate is to make it more likely that their most-opposed major party candidate will win over their least-opposed major party candidate.

> There are usually a few independents in either chamber of Congress

Since WWII, there's sometimes a few independents in Congress in total, but rarely more than 1-2 in either chamber, and often none in one or both chambers. Things were a little different earlier (in part because the two-party system in each state was sometimes not the same as the national two-party system; e.g., in Minnesota for a considerable period, the two competitive parties were the Farmer-Labor Party and the Republican Party.)

And even the very small number of independents in Congress overstates the non-party influence; very often the "independents" in Congress are either people who were elected as members of one party and then defected after being elected (sometimes being re-elected as independents once they have secured the advantages of incumbency), and at other times they are independents that one of the two major parties has chosen not to oppose in general elections. (Note that the two independents currently in the US Congress, both in the Senate, include one of each of those descriptions.)

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the FISA decided that the NSA's activities were illegal, why would it keep rubber-stamping the warrants? First, I don't agree that they rubber-stamp warrants, but believe they evaluate them on a case-by-case basis - not least because their decisions might be classified now, but may well be declassified in the future, and their reasoning will be held up to scrutiny. More importantly, just because an agency is found…

I'm not sure how anyone can has enough reasonable information to make a case that FISA doesn't rubber stamp cases. It seems to me it works that of the way large organizations navigate political nuances internally; people who don't run the technology and platforms make the decisions as it pertains to influence that, is often, good for self-preservation and fiscal motivation - the operators implement the systems as the…

"I'm not sure how anyone can has enough reasonable information to make a case that FISA doesn't rubber stamp cases."

The burden of proof is on the positive, not the negative.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theodore Roosevelt indeed - I jammed his name together with Woodrow Wilson, his Democratic opponent. Wilson beat him handily, but Roosevelt still outpolled the GOP candidate, WH Taft. You are quite right about the key difference with the US having an elected executive vs the parliamentary democacy system of the UK, but I don't see how FPTP prevent the election of Congressional candidates from outside the two major pa…

> I don't see how FPTP prevent the election of Congressional candidates from outside the two major parties. It doesn't prevent it, it just makes it extremely rare. The reason is, essentially, Tragedy of the Commons: for each individual voter, the most strongest result from voting for a minor party candidate rather than the least-opposed major party candidate is to make it more likely that their most-opposed major par…

I appreciate that - I'm familiar with Condorcet's and Arrow's theorems. I'm not a fan of FPTP myself (as I come from a country with proportional representation, and quite like that it's how local elections are run where I live); I just don't think it's deliberately engineered to effectively prevent the formation of other parties, although I certainly agree that it's frequently gamed to that end.

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#78
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wrote this a couple days ago in response to another HN comment but it's relevant here too; the first paragraph is the one I responded to: >The question is then; in a two party system where both offer the blue pill, who the hell do you vote for? Greens or libertarians, which I have been doing for a long time. Real change starts at the ballot box.

Barring a constitutional amendment that implements a multiparty, proportional-representation parliament, your choices in Murka are either Kang or Kodos.

If what you're doing isn't working, do anything else.

Voting 3rd party is anything else.

I vote 3rd party, which to me is invoking "none of the above."

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how anyone can has enough reasonable information to make a case that FISA doesn't rubber stamp cases. It seems to me it works that of the way large organizations navigate political nuances internally; people who don't run the technology and platforms make the decisions as it pertains to influence that, is often, good for self-preservation and fiscal motivation - the operators implement the systems as the…

"I'm not sure how anyone can has enough reasonable information to make a case that FISA doesn't rubber stamp cases." The burden of proof is on the positive, not the negative.

In fairness that runs in both directions - we would certainly be better off with some proof of FISA courts' effectiveness, even if were historical (eg declassification of past decisions from >10 years ago, or the establishment of objective criteria for declassification).

Re: Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the FISA decided that the NSA's activities were illegal, why would it keep rubber-stamping the warrants? First, I don't agree that they rubber-stamp warrants, but believe they evaluate them on a case-by-case basis - not least because their decisions might be classified now, but may well be declassified in the future, and their reasoning will be held up to scrutiny. More importantly, just because an agency is found…

I disagree that this argument involves a fallacy. The following statements are not equivalent: 1. It seems like at that point it should deny every single request going forward until the illegal activities have stopped. 2. Every request going forward is illegitimate. (2) is false, but I believe that (1) is plausible, especially if there are any difficulties for FISA to determine whether any particular NSA request is l…

I think that they are; if you're sufficiently convinced of 1), then 2) follows as a matter of logic.
Post reply on HN