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

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

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 151 posts

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

#141

Post by prutschman »

oh_sigh wrote: post #139
Sacho wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think the problem is that you are arguing whether the law should exist or not - I was only arguing that, given that the law exists, it is possible to reacquire your money if it was legally earned.

It's possible to reacquire your money less legal fees. That's an important distinction for anyone who tries to get their money back.

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

#142

Post by moribondus »

Well, they will further and further encroach until they meet some kind of resistance. Unfortunately, resistance will not easily materialize because people here would be the first ones to utterly condemn respect-instilling reprisals.

As far as I am concerned, they can do whatever they want with people who accept that. Concerning myself, I am always on the outlook for some kind of counter-veiling power, the most interesting of which is Islam. It really retaliates. So, I am positive about it.

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

#143

Post by oh_sigh »

prutschman wrote: post #141
oh_sigh wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem is that you are arguing whether the law should exist or not - I was only arguing that, given that the law exists, it is possible to reacquire your money if it was legally earned.

It's possible to reacquire your money less legal fees . That's an important distinction for anyone who tries to get their money back.

Ok, and, again, in this case, the person had pro bono lawyers available to take the case.

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

#144

Post by EdHominem »

oh_sigh wrote: post #143
prutschman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to reacquire your money less legal fees . That's an important distinction for anyone who tries to get their money back.

Ok, and, again, in this case, the person had pro bono lawyers available to take the case.

In this one case someone else is paying the bill as charity so clearly there is no problem at all...

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

#145

Post by knieveltech »

omginternets wrote: post #128
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…

No, I'm saying warrants should be a required condition for any search or seizure, not that they are currently. Law enforcement's job shouldn't be easy.

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

#146

Post by wallace_f »

wallace_f wrote: post #114
tn13 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The problem is if you are going to have a higher number of cops per capita, they need to catch someone to justify their existence. The only reason we have "War against drugs" because there aren't any other wars that politicians are fighting with. Almost all problems are solved (compared to say India). Insightful comment. I hope for a future where we focus on using government to govern ourselves in a way in which we…

Correction: that is (probably obvious) supposed to say, "reward people for doing good things, and punish people for doing bad things." My comment is uneditable now, though.

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

#148

Post by Jemmeh »

lostlogin wrote: post #36
Jemmeh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I've heard "for the children" on left and right. "Gay parents are bad for the children" "Spanking is bad for the children"

Until a few years ago a disciplinary spanking of a child was allowed in New Zealand and a woman was found not to have broken the law when she used a horse riding crop. TLDR an NZ style spanking is bad for the child.

Not surprising. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but growing up they used leather belts where I'm from. Pretty sure it's legal. To me that's worse than a riding crop.

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

#149

Post by omginternets »

knieveltech wrote: post #145
omginternets wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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…

No, I'm saying warrants should be a required condition for any search or seizure, not that they are currently. Law enforcement's job shouldn't be easy.

That's absurd.

There are plenty of good reasons to conduct search and seizures without warrants. Simple example: a cop hears someone screaming for help inside of an apartment.

With respect (really!), I think you have a bit of an ideological blind-spot. I can relate, as I used to have the same one (and probably still do in some cases).

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

#150

Post by knieveltech »

omginternets wrote: post #149
knieveltech wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm saying warrants should be a required condition for any search or seizure, not that they are currently. Law enforcement's job shouldn't be easy.

That's absurd. There are plenty of good reasons to conduct search and seizures without warrants. Simple example: a cop hears someone screaming for help inside of an apartment. With respect (really!), I think you have a bit of an ideological blind-spot. I can relate, as I used to have the same one (and probably still do in some cases).

What do you think is more common, the "screams coming from apartment" edge case or corrupt cops abusing "probable cause"?
Post reply on HN