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

Obama to release FISA court opinion that ruled NSA surveillance unconstitutional

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 143 posts

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

#111

Post by dragonwriter »

fragsworth wrote: post #12
DannyBee wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will release a redacted version of the opinion in question, and a redacted version of exactly one paragraph from a classified whitepaper given to congress on it. In both cases, how redacted they will be is up in the air. They requested an extension until August 21st to do this (original deadline was August 12th). The EFF "reluctantly did not oppose this"

It's really unfortunate that secret courts aren't unconstitutional. You would think that one should have been obvious.

> It's really unfortunate that secret courts aren't unconstitutional.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review aren't secret courts.

Their proceedings may be invariably be secret because of their subject matter, but the proceedings of regular federal courts may be, too. The difference is that the FISC and FISCR deal exclusively with issues that are handled in secret, but there is no principle that would prohibit them as "secret courts" that wouldn't also prohibit all sealed proceedings in the other federal courts.

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

#112

Post by bane »

anigbrowl wrote: post #55
JPKab wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mark, I agree. I think that the situation is this: politicians, in the short term, view the security side of the security vs. freedom debate as the best option. If you can stop a terrorist attack from occurring by infringing freedom, then do it. An attack will make you look much worse than a few intelligent people being upset about privacy invasion. That, sadly, is the unfortunate incentive happening here. I think th…

The founders recognized this, which is why the 4th Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, is supposed to be enforced by the separate branch of government that is the Judicial Branch. You're saying the police power is the province of the Judicial Branch?! This is a...unique interpretation. The Constitution divides the power of the government in legislative (making law), executive (promulgating and enforci…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Council_of_Franc...

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

#113

Post by dragonwriter »

cortesoft wrote: post #53
jivatmanx wrote: post #19

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 idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is up to the people sounds like a good idea; however, how exactly would that work in practice? We obviously can't just let each individual interpret it how they see fit, or it becomes effectively meaningless. It would be equally impossible for each Constitutional question to be 'voted' on by the people. Is there a way I am missing? It seems the courts are the only…

> The idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is up to the people sounds like a good idea; however, how exactly would that work in practice?

The people individually would decide what the Constitution means, and they would -- having made those decisions -- individually and collectively act to hold incumbent officials and candidates accountable to those interpretations through voting, public advocacy, protests, and, in extreme cases, direct action.

> We obviously can't just let each individual interpret it how they see fit

Not only can we, but we really have no other choice; whether we like it or not, each individual will do that, even if "how they see fit" is to delegate the interpretation to some individual authority, or the collective wisdom of the rest of the population.

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

#114

Post by dragonwriter »

jivatmanx wrote: post #19

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…

> At a point in our nation's early history, we decided to trust Constitutional interpretation to the Supreme Court.

I don't think we did.

We gave the federal judiciary responsibility, within the government, for resolving cases and controversies arising under the federal Constitution and laws, including, inter alia, questions cases and controversies involving disputes over whether a government act was consistent with the Constitution (we did that, incidentally, at the point when we ratified the Constitution.)

However, that in no way makes the Supreme Court exclusively responsible for interpreting the Constitution, the President is also given a duty to preserve the Constitution and see that the laws are faithfully executed, and that duty requires interpeting the Constitution even when there is no legally cognizable case or controversy for the judiciary to decide.

And Congress, of course, has both powers and obligations under the Constitution which require it to interpret the Constitution -- again, even when there is no legally cognizable case or controversy for the judiciary to decide.

And, ultimately, the whole system relies on the people interpreting the Constitution and holding those in government office accountable to it, whether there is a legally cognizable case or controversy for the judiciary to decide, and whether or not the judiciary is willing to do its duty properly when such a case or controversy exists.

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

#116

Post by dylangs1030 »

haliax wrote: post #109
dylangs1030 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the point. In logic, it's fruitless to try to place the burden of proof on a negative statement. Example: "Prove there isn't an invisble ball of undetectable mass swirling in my hand." What I was saying is a general rule that's valid across every subject in logical debate, and it is valid as a response for the sentence I quoted. What you're saying isn't a rebuttal to my point.

I have to take issue with the point about negative statements, surely it's no more fruitful to say "Prove there IS an invisible ball of undetectable mass swirling in my hand." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it's fruitless to place the burden of proof on a statement which is syllogistically isolated from any statement known to be true?

No, it is more fruiful to say, "Prove there is..." because that's the basis of scientific/mathematical rigor. If you can prove it exists, it does. If you can't prove it exists, it doesn't, for all intents and purposes. You then act as though it doesn't, because until you can find evidence for it, it might as well be nonexistent, and you should act that way to be logical.

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

#117

Post by jtc331 »

JPKab wrote: post #36
mark_l_watson wrote: post #29

I donated money to Obama's 2008 campaign and voted for him twice. I am very disappointed with him. Now, my honest opinion is that at worst he sometimes flat out lies, or at least cleverly tries to confuse people. He says that he had an orderly plan for reviewing privacy issues, all the while, I think that his administration has consistently been trying to keep things hushed up.

Mark, I agree. I think that the situation is this: politicians, in the short term, view the security side of the security vs. freedom debate as the best option. If you can stop a terrorist attack from occurring by infringing freedom, then do it. An attack will make you look much worse than a few intelligent people being upset about privacy invasion. That, sadly, is the unfortunate incentive happening here. I think th…

>> "We need a Constitution Protection Agency that is part of the Judicial Branch."

I don't believe that a government can /ever/ effectively regulate itself--not matter how many/how strong the agencies you create.

The only effective remedy is a truly informed citizenry and civil disobedience.

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

#118

Post by droopybuns »

Sauer_Kraut wrote: post #45
droopybuns wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry- perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting that anyone who works for these companies MUST somehow be complicit in these encroachments by the government. If that's not the case, I think you're cool on not eating your brussel sprouts.

After being informed nearly daily of how one's work assists another in their deeds, then continuing to accept salary, it is compliance and complicity. Others have shown they do not need to comply, to various ends. Snowden[1], Klein[2], Manning[3], Barrett[4], Levison[5]. This is a terribly narrow range of those who refused and resisted in recent history. From admin to technician to analyst to activist to owner, you c…

When violent revolution is around the corner, I will buy this argument. The deficiency in your position is that it assumes change cannot happen from within.

Additionally there are great things that these companies do in spite of government intervention. If these services were abandoned, peoples lives can be put at risk.

Your arguments only make sense if the country is on the verge of revolution. Given the ratings on TV, and the velocity of posts on /r/advice animals, I don't think were there yet.

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

#119

Post by jivatmanx »

dragonwriter wrote: post #113
cortesoft wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is up to the people sounds like a good idea; however, how exactly would that work in practice? We obviously can't just let each individual interpret it how they see fit, or it becomes effectively meaningless. It would be equally impossible for each Constitutional question to be 'voted' on by the people. Is there a way I am missing? It seems the courts are the only…

> The idea that the interpretation of the Constitution is up to the people sounds like a good idea; however, how exactly would that work in practice? The people individually would decide what the Constitution means, and they would -- having made those decisions -- individually and collectively act to hold incumbent officials and candidates accountable to those interpretations through voting, public advocacy, protests…

Great post. I think my central point is that it's dangerous for a democratic society to believe that nine robed Brahmins are the only people qualified to interpret it.

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

#120

Post by impendia »

anigbrowl wrote: post #80
impendia wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if you define "legitimate" so that what you say is tautological; not if "legitimate" means, for example, "concerning a targeted and specific terrorist threat".
Post reply on HN