FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases • Hacker News Board

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#121

Post by Sacho » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 8:13 AM UTC

oh_sigh wrote: post #116

prutschman wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much does it cost to hire a lawyer to (try to) get your $11k back?

I'm sure there were people lining up to defend him pro bono because he was a national case...

We've gone from "the kid is actually guilty", to "well if the kid is innocent it would be trivial to get his money back", to "well if the kid is innocent it's not trivial to get his money back but because it was a national case there's bound to be someone willing to do the work for him out of altruism".

While these may all be true, on your way to be right you've discarded everyone who doesn't get media spotlight, is innocent, and still has their assets forfeited.

No one was disputing your original point anyway - yes, there are ways to get your money back - which you shouldn't have lost in the first place. That's the whole problem with these half-assed, poorly thought-through laws - they are intended to only be applied to criminals, so by assumption the person they are applied to is a criminal, so it's no big deal if they have to jump through ridiculous, possibly life-ruining hoops to go back to their normal life.

Another point that isn't really discussed - after sacrificing the civil liberties of people who have to go through civil forfeiture, is there a worthwhile effect on the drug lords and drug runners, or is this a case like DRM?

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#122

Post by titzer » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 8:13 AM UTC

marze wrote: post #2

You'd think terrorism/spy cases would be a small minority of overall cases. And not that hard to justify a warrant. Seems odd that they feel it is important to skip the warrant step for such cases. Why not require a warrant? The more checks and balances the better.

It's basically testing whether the frog responds to increases in water temperature.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#123

Post by uberuser » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 8:15 AM UTC

tn13 wrote: post #86

hx87 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxes aren't the problem--it's the fees, law-enforcement-as-revenue-service, and other hacks to get around the lack of tax revenue that makes government nasty. I'd much rather pay taxes and zero out all government fees, civil forfeiture and non-criminal fines.

I lived in India for many years. India has idiotic laws but the government simply does not have enough money to enforce any laws. As a result we can simply ignore the laws and get about our business. (That also explains corruption and inability to scale a model). For example my house was not connected by road. When we tried to build our own private road we realized we had to take clearance from 8 departments which wo…

>India has idiotic laws but the government simply does not have enough money to enforce any laws Kinda same in Russia. There is even a national joke: "The severity of Russian laws is alleviated by the lack of obligation to obey them." But it's excuse of course, we must change the things.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#124

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 8:30 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #49

busterarm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that many judges are elected (even when they run unopposed). I can see the attack ad now: "Judge Soandso thinks that terrorists deserve a greater right to privacy than you do. Judge Soandso protects terrorists. Vote Judge Otherguy." Kinda turns this into a rubber stamp.

Eventually someone might figure out the right words to use to counteract that strategy. "Judge Otherguy's tough-on-crime strategy led to a $1500 DUI charge for an innocent grandmother on SSI who was poisoned by her doctor. Vote Judge Soandso to protect the elderly."

[deleted]

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#125

Post by atom-morgan » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 12:41 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #83

giancarlostoro wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing some of the things that have been done before the Bush Administration. Operation Northwoods is alarming as it is, and that's back in the early 60's.

Sure, but the FBI demanding warrantless access to browser history in order to fight terrorism, and expecting to get it, is a direct result of Bush administration policy.

Who started it is irrelevant if all following presidents continue to with it.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#126

Post by sailfast » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 1:03 PM UTC

c_c_c wrote: post #109

sailfast wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every few weeks I remind myself that J. Edgar Hoover retired as director of the FBI in 1972 after running the organization for 48 years. Somebody that fundamental to the formation of an organization creates a culture.

Not relevant to your point, but Hoover never retired. He died in office.

Good point!

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#127

Post by omginternets » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 1:16 PM UTC

sheepleherd wrote: post #84

slavik81 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simply inaccurate. Gerrymandering is specifically the redrawing of electoral districts in a purposefully unfair manner . It's commonly prevented by setting up independent commissions to do the redrawing of districts, rather than allowing the incumbent politicians to draw the lines directly. It's named after the former Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, who redrew the districts to ensure his party would…

You (and everybody else) don't understand what I mean because you haven't thought about it as much as I have. By what principle do you think districts should be drawn--they must be redrawn due to shifting population--so do you intend to draw exaggerated patterns to spread out minority opinions, or to clump them together? Or are you suggesting that you flip coins topologically? What if flipping coins results in a sala…

I think people are reacting to your tone. In terms of content you may well have a point: is the drawing of district lines sensible in the first place?

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#128

Post by omginternets » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

knieveltech wrote: post #63

"The FBI wants to access N without a warrant." Sane answer: no, for all values of N.

>"The FBI wants to access N without a warrant." Sane answer: no, for all values of N.

You're repeating a common fallacy, namely that warrants are a sine qua non condition for search and seizure. This is false. In the United States, one enjoys constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

While a warrant goes a very long way towards making a search or seizure reasonable, the two are not to be equated.

A few notable exceptions where warrants are not required:

- The so-called motor-vehicle exception

- The so-called "in hot pursuit" exception

I think we share the same feeling towards this particular case, but it's important to understand the legal arguments being made. The FBI is essentially claiming that it is reasonable to search browser history without a warrant.

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#129

Post by wonder_er » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 1:24 PM UTC

csense wrote: post #43

A couple decades ago when the government wanted to get civil forfeiture powers, they said it was only going to be for the worst organized crime bosses and drug lords. Then within the last few years, a black kid who takes his life savings -- $10,000 cash -- and moves across the country to start a new life is (apparently entirely legally) relieved of it by two police officers and has no means to get it back, despite ne…

Popehat [0] has an excellent list of questions to ask when giving a new power to the government:

1. Does the United States Constitution permit the government to do this?

2. What would this power look like if it were expanded dramatically in scope or in time?

3. What would this obligation look like if exercised indifferently by unaccountable people?

4. What would your worst enemy do with this power?

The list goes on, but points 2, 3, and 4 should be sufficient to cause pause for even the most aggressive supporter of expanding government powers.

[0] https://popehat.com/2016/06/02/libertarianism-as-ten-questio...

Re: FBI wants access to browser history without a warrant in terrorism, spy cases

#130

Post by sheepleherd » Wed, Jun 08, 2016, 1:26 PM UTC

JadeNB wrote: post #88

sheepleherd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you scour the discussion history of the wikipedia page you will find my comments many months ago disputing that the article implies that there is some "fair" way to draw districts without laying out what that way should be. I contend that the system we use, the gerrymandering system, is the most defensible, it's democratic. Don't like it, vote for somebody else.

> Don't like it, vote for somebody else. The explicit goal of gerrymandering is to render this remedy ineffectual.

cute turn of phrase :)

however, I feel you are so convinced you are right that you are not looking at the actual issue and you intellectually impoverish yourself as a result. Gerrymander is an accusation you hurl at opponents in the majority who don't do what you want (like calling them uncivil even if they have not been, eh!?). However, when your party is in you do the same thing... not because you are a hypocrite (like the hypocritical games played over Supreme Court nominations) but because there is no way to draw redistricting boundaries that is actually fair; many factions will be disadvantaged by aggregating votes in districts, there is no way to avoid it.

Instead of downvoting me more, google a supposed gerrymander map and try it on a city you know, you'll see that you'll be making political choices that you favor. You might be "fair" in your mind because you consider yourself an independent so you will favor neither Democrats nor Republicans, but instead your gerrymander will favor some other metrics that you prefer.

You might even go so far as try to create a very evenly divided legislature that will have difficulty passing any laws, and you'll look at me and say "see, I did it"... then immediately after that I'll have to listen to your unsophisticated drivel about how gridlock is destroying our country and if only everybody was "civil" like you, beautiful compromises would emerge.