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

Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 113 posts

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#61

Post by cgranade »

AlexandrB wrote: post #36
danenania wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?" How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win,…

> How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win, then it's just a coordination problem. I think that's a bit idealistic. A lot of people voted Ralph Nader in 2000, and while it's up for debate wheth…

I agree with you, but I'd have hoped the outrageous shit happening now would be enough to break the two-party dynamic, but I'm rather doubting it, having seen that the reactions are defined by the media in an entirely two-party manner. I think if anything from the NSA leaks changes this dynamic, it will be the exodus of technology dollars from the US.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#62

Post by diminoten »

danenania wrote: post #23
AlexandrB wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. Who should Americans vote for then? Here's what the Conservative party had to say during the 2008 election cycle: "Although our country has thwarted new terrorist attacks since 2001, those threats do persist. That is why our reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was so vital, and why the Democrats' opposition to it was so wrong." Hmm, sounds like they were promising more of the same. If your sugge…

"If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?" How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win,…

I substitute "lesser of two evils" with "neither of two evils" but it ends at the same place.

I believe any rational actor would behave as Bush and Obama have during their terms in office. For this reason I can't justify voting for a third party candidate, either, because I still believe they'd act similarly, and with less inherent power, they'd be more easily swayed into acting irrationally (being president helps a great deal in working within your respective national committee, and an independent wouldn't have that support).

The only conclusion I'm forced to face is the undeniable statistical fact that, individually, it doesn't matter if I vote at all.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#63

Post by Zoomla »

AlexandrB wrote: post #14
grandalf wrote: post #3

Let's all remember this kind of thing the next time we are inspired by a candidate's promises or rhetoric.

Okay. Who should Americans vote for then? Here's what the Conservative party had to say during the 2008 election cycle: "Although our country has thwarted new terrorist attacks since 2001, those threats do persist. That is why our reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was so vital, and why the Democrats' opposition to it was so wrong." Hmm, sounds like they were promising more of the same. If your sugge…

vote for nobody... if there is a very small percentage of the population that votes, can they really say that this is a democracy?

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#64

Post by nitrogen »

DannyBee wrote: post #60
mikhael wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read GauntletWizard's point as that such devices are becoming like "brain prostheses." If the device were embedded in your skull/brain, but could be wiretapped, would it be subject to the fifth amendment? If technology develops to read information from another's brain without their consent, would that be subject to the fifth amendment?

An interesting question. Again, the main historical reason for the fifth amendment was torture, not to avoid knowing the truth, or that you were somehow magically sacred. If you could read it out of people's brains, harmlessly, painlessly, etc, i think that would be fine. Now remember, the fifth amendment protections apply in custodial settings (and similar), so you would already have to have been arrested/etc at thi…

If you could read it out of people's brains, harmlessly, painlessly, etc, i think that would be fine.

I must state that this sentiment sickens me slightly. I sincerely hope that this interpretation is absolutely unthinkable by the time technology reaches that point. I don't believe that any world in which one's thoughts and memories are not private can ever be free.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#65

Post by ISL »

DannyBee wrote: post #50
ISL wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many of the founders would have agreed with you. That said, it's my understanding that personal diaries are admissible in court. Our electronics are similarly private, so the fourth amendment, protecting 'persons, houses, papers, and effects', applies.

"I think many of the founders would have agreed with you." Based on what? The fifth amendment exists mainly to prevent torturing people for extracting information, a practice that was not uncommon in parts of the 16th and 17th centuries. Extending this to "personal assistants" doesn't seem like anything the founders would have supported, so i'd love to see evidence. Again, the fourth amendment, i agree, but the fifth…

My diary is just myself in the past. Must I be compelled to testify against my future self?

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#66

Post by samstave »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #35

Your cellphones and personal computers shouldn't be protected by the Fourth ammendment; They should be protected by the Fifth. More and more, cellphones, PCs, and even other people's servers are becoming invaluable, impossible-to-live-without brain extensions. That they should be allowed to be used against you in court is insane. The communications that they send and receive should be subject to well-overseen surveil…

>It's only a matter of time before "I" am my newsfeeds, e-mails, calendar reminders, etc.

That time is already here, and it has a title: "Strong-Selector"

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#67

Post by DannyBee »

nitrogen wrote: post #64
DannyBee wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting question. Again, the main historical reason for the fifth amendment was torture, not to avoid knowing the truth, or that you were somehow magically sacred. If you could read it out of people's brains, harmlessly, painlessly, etc, i think that would be fine. Now remember, the fifth amendment protections apply in custodial settings (and similar), so you would already have to have been arrested/etc at thi…

If you could read it out of people's brains, harmlessly, painlessly, etc, i think that would be fine. I must state that this sentiment sickens me slightly. I sincerely hope that this interpretation is absolutely unthinkable by the time technology reaches that point. I don't believe that any world in which one's thoughts and memories are not private can ever be free.

Sorry, I should have been clear: I meant fine legally, in the context of the fifth amendment. It is not a statement of what I believe the social view/norm/etc should be, or whether it should be allowed. Only an objective assessment of whether it would fall within the context of what was currently protected and the intent of protecting that.

Personally, I would find it abhorrent, but that is not particularly relevant to the law.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#68

Post by enraged_camel »

jlgreco wrote: post #52
enraged_camel wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a fourth option.

There are several other options, some more practical than others. If only we required a hard majority of Americans to vote for somebody for them to win, then abstaining from voting could become an option with teeth. Then candidates would have to convince the public that they should vote for them, rather than just convincing the public not to vote for the other guy. Abstaining is, in my opinion, a respectable choice.…

>>We need a discussion on what being a democracy actually means.

Unfortunately, the American political system is not equipped to train and empower the type of enlightened leader(s) who can initiate and lead this type of discussion.

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#69

Post by nitrogen »

danenania wrote: post #23
AlexandrB wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay. Who should Americans vote for then? Here's what the Conservative party had to say during the 2008 election cycle: "Although our country has thwarted new terrorist attacks since 2001, those threats do persist. That is why our reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was so vital, and why the Democrats' opposition to it was so wrong." Hmm, sounds like they were promising more of the same. If your sugge…

"If your suggestion is voting for an independent, is there a realistic scenario where an independent candidate could get elected in the United States?" How about a scenario in which all the people who claim to be voting for the lesser of two evils reevaluate their own defeatist attitude? If the only thing stopping a significant enough percentage of people from voting for a 3rd party is the perceived inability to win,…

The problem is that a first-past-the-post election system makes a two-party system a near mathematical certainty:

http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/:

"The Plurality and Hare methods both favour extremists: they can squeeze out a moderate candidate. The blue candidate, stuck in the middle between the red and green candidates, will win when public opinion is moderate with the Approval and Condorcet methods, but has no chance of winning in the Plurality and Hare methods."

Re: Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches

#70

Post by samstave »

cgshaw wrote: post #49
DannyBee wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fifth amendment was only ever intended to be dealing with testimony - you couldn't be called as a witness against yourself (the history of why it exists makes this clear). That is, you literally can not be asked to testify against yourself, in a custodial interrogation, court, or other setting where it could be used as evidence against you in a criminal trial. It was never intended to prevent evidence you were st…

Attorney here. DannyBee is absolutely correct. To my knowledge, data on a computer would be handled like an offender's diary, and that is certainly admissible in court, assuming authentication that the diary was actually written by the offender. Data is interesting because authentication can arguable be harder to prove. (handwriting is pretty easy to attribute) The truth is, the founding fathers likely could not have…

Question:

Assume the year is 1790.

DannyBee and PG are having a conversation in a sewer beneath Boston. DannyBee tells PG that he is going to rob the town bank and set it afire.

This was a verbal communication between the two.

There was a USG agent around the corner in another tunnel. He heard an echo of the two talking. This is the only evidence of the two communicating about the matter.

How is this prosecuted?

(please forgive the weak analogy - and improve if you can... but please tell me the 1790 equiv argument for what we are dealing with where the snooping is either protected or denied)

Post reply on HN