Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal • Hacker News Board

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#201

Post by cataphract » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 11:37 PM UTC

gnopgnip wrote: post #175

hinkley wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was young and dreamed of being a rock star^W^W entrepreneur I used to pay more attention to contract law. It seems like everywhere from roommate, landlord, business, or partnership contracts, we seem to write down rules but not consequences or penalties. Oh you were supposed to pay rent or this invoice, but I can't make you do it? What's the point of contracts? The time I owned property with someone, I at leas…

As an partial/joint owner of a property you always have the right to partition, even if you don't have a contract ahead of time.

Yeah, at least in Portugal it's the same thing. People can agree not to partition, but only for 5 years. Typically an apartment (or even a house) cannot be partitioned (it would have to have independent entrances, to follow local zoning rules and so on), so a sale is forced in a sealed bid auction. The other joint owners do not have a right of first refusal in that case, though, only if the joint owner tries to sell his or her quota.

If he was married and it was a conjugal asset, that would be another matter, though.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#202

Post by portpecos » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 11:40 PM UTC

lehi wrote: post #166

ncmncm wrote: post #2

Now, when can we begin prosecuting the instigators? Presumably, after we have prosecuted those who ordered and participated in torture. (There is no statute of limitations on torture, is there?)

A reminder that a CIA officer who oversaw, ordered, and participated in systematic detainee torture, then wrote the order to destroy the evidential tapes of said torture, was not only not punished or prosecuted but promoted to the current Director of the agency. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_CIA_interrogation_videota... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Haspel

Yeah but Gina had unanimous support by Democrats, Republicans, and the entire CIA to become the Director of the CIA.

Let’s not forget that Obama re-signed the Patriot Act even after campaigning in 2008 to end it.

This kind of behavior is a problem that spans generations of government positions. It’s about time something is done about it.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#203

Post by laughinghan » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 11:42 PM UTC

yyyk wrote: post #112

danenania wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me that just the pardon power by itself is fundamentally incompatible with democracy and the rule of law. It's like saying you're a pacifist... except for Tuesdays when you go on a weekly killing spree. I imagine that if we can survive and progress long enough to have real democracy and rule of law, our present system will be viewed a transitional period that, for all its very real improvements, was still…

There's no choice in a democracy but to have something like the pardon power. The reason is that we need protection also from the power of judicial branch, which is abusable like any branch with power. Not having a pardon power allows bad judges to throw anyone they don't like into jail with no recourse by anyone. In a democracy, all branches are checked by the others, and this is a necessary check on the judicial br…

Not having a pardon power allows bad judges to throw anyone they don't like into jail with no recourse by anyone.

Technically, all judges can be impeached, and all judges other than SCOTUS can be appealed (there's actually a specific writ you can file claiming to be jailed unjustly, habeas corpus).

In practice, impeachment hasn't proven to be much of a check on judicial power (recall elections have probably been more effective overall), but I think the appeals process more or less works and I don't think the pardon power has added much, on balance. I think unilateral pardon power by a political official has proven sufficiently ripe for abuse that I would even support adding limits like some kind of Congressional check, but it's definitely nowhere near a top priority.

Obviously the appeals process has had plenty of failings too, the Japanese internment camps being the most famous example, another high-profile one is Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#204

Post by 0xdde » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 11:44 PM UTC

laughinghan wrote: post #189

stefan_ wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The historical track record isn't good. Nobody bothered much with prosecuting nazis or nazi collaborators after WW2, Stasi spies after the reunion, party members after the soviet collapse, AT&T and others for collaborating with the NSA on warrantless surveillance (that was Bush) or the CIA torturers (that was Obama). "[N]othing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past … we must resist…

I'm confused by your Bush and Obama references—both incidents occurred under Bush, the one that you attribute to Bush was revealed under Obama, whereas the one you attribute to Obama was revealed under Bush. Are you attributing based on occurrence or based on decision not to prosecute? Did you accidentally switch them?

Do you have some deeper point you're trying to get at? This sounds like a total nitpick, and I'm not sure where you're getting your erroneous corrections from.

The illegal wire-tapping was a matter known to the public before Obama's time and there was a case brought by the EFF during the Bush years. The CIA torture comment most likely refers to the fact that a Senate report on CIA abuses was published during Obama's tenure and led to no punishment that I'm aware of.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#205

Post by dx87 » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #197

vvpan wrote: post #131

Pardon Snowden.

Hard to even pretend he did something wrong after this ruling. The government was proven to be acting illegally and likely also unconstitutionally, he had a moral imperative to alert the public.

Well, we can't forget that he also took a bunch of information that had nothing to do with this ruling.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#206

Post by mikeyouse » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

srtjstjsj wrote: post #195

eesmith wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find mention of him making that specific promise of pardoning all non-violent drug crimes. I did find https://joebiden.com/justice/ saying: > Biden believes no one should be in jail because of cannabis use. As president, he will decriminalize cannabis use and automatically expunge prior convictions. And, he will support the legalization of cannabis for medical purposes, leave decisions regarding legalization…

He's talking about changing laws, which of course he can't literally do, but Presidents always claim to do and they do have a lot of influence over Congress.

If Biden wins, there will certainly be a Democratic House and maybe 50:50 odds right now on a Democratic Senate, so he'd likely be able to implement whatever priorities he sees fit.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#207

Post by indigochill » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

ardy42 wrote: post #54

_8j50 wrote: post #6

You know what I don't get? There is no penalty for violating the highest law of the land (the constitution). How is it anymore than a suggestion or a guidline if government officials are not punished for violating it? And that is exactly how lae enforcement and intelligence community treat it. The US constitution needs lots of updates but this maybe the most important item -- manadatory prison terms for anyone acting…

> You know what I don't get? There is no penalty for violating the highest law of the land (the constitution). How is it anymore than a suggestion or a guidline if government officials are not punished for violating it? And that is exactly how lae enforcement and intelligence community treat it. It's because it can't reasonably work like that. At a certain point, defining punishments is moot, because there's no highe…

> what are you going to do, throw Congress in jail?

My understanding is at the time it was written, it was expected that a government would be balanced by the potential military might of an armed rebellion should the government act so against the interests of the populace as to inspire that response (after all, starved and freezing American rebels had just beaten one of the mightiest empires in history, so they had set historical precedent).

I don't think the founders foresaw a future in which the government's military might so far surpassed the public's as to make such a rebellion unthinkable.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#208

Post by AaronFriel » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 11:50 PM UTC

ByteJockey wrote: post #187

AaronFriel wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would be unconstitutional ex-post-facto. Obergefell v. Hodges didn't define sex discrimination in marriage certificates unconstitutional after a certain date . It was always unconstitutional, and was recognized as such in their ruling. And yes, I would like to see, actually, qualified immunity removed and governments held liable for rights violations. Perhaps not prison time for the clerks - who were…

I imagine that the rights you're talking about would never have been recognized in such a world. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it was hard enough to get those rights recognized in the realm of argument, I imagine putting a giant pile of money on the other side would make it functionally impossible to change anything. Putting financial penalties on admitting your mistakes doesn't usually make people more compassio…

I don't think individuals involved in the government should always be liable, it should be the government itself in these institutional cases.

If a police department, a county clerk, or a school repeatedly violates someone's rights, I don't think it's fair to say "Well, we 'fixed' the problem for anyone who comes after those folks." For one thing, due to qualified immunity with police brutality the problem never actually goes away. No one is every held responsible. For another, when cases actually can go all the way up to a court of appeals or the United States Supreme Court, the remedy is usually "don't do that".

There's a pernicious form of cruelty that many of the same people politically aligned with denying people rights also believe that equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, is the best way to organize society. Yet, when it's recognized that opportunities have been systemically denied and stolen from certain classes of people, those people offer no recompense.

We can and should change that. If we really, genuinely do believe in equality of opportunity then reparations for civil rights violations are necessary. We cannot have equality of opportunity when the playing field has been tilted by centuries of generational and institutional harms.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#209

Post by AaronFriel » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 11:55 PM UTC

srtjstjsj wrote: post #192

AaronFriel wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would be unconstitutional ex-post-facto. Obergefell v. Hodges didn't define sex discrimination in marriage certificates unconstitutional after a certain date . It was always unconstitutional, and was recognized as such in their ruling. And yes, I would like to see, actually, qualified immunity removed and governments held liable for rights violations. Perhaps not prison time for the clerks - who were…

We already have that system. Congress can pay any reparations it decides. You want a system where any judge or jury can decide that someone owes someone else a billion dollars based on past law? Until 4 years later when a judge or jury rules the other way and makes them pay it back?

Yes, I believe Congress should pass a law repealing or narrowing the Supreme Court's creation of qualified immunity, and I believe that §1983 lawsuits and rights violations in general, or a variation thereof, should entitle the harmed individuals to reparations.

To keep such reparations from being held up in courts or tossed back and forth, I think that upon finding a violation of constitutional rights has occurred, the Supreme Court can and should appoint a special master or appoint parties to determine the appropriate remedy for historical abuses.

When one state violates another's rights, usually water rights, cases of so-called original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, they appoint such an individual to study the matter to the extent the court needs, being themselves not experts. The states can argue over the findings and sometimes the reparations are revisited on an annual or recurring basis. The finding may sometimes be that one state owes another "a billion dollars" based on past law.

I see no reason why classes of people shouldn't be afforded the same here. There exist mechanisms to provide long-term, well-informed and adversarially argued remedies. We should not throw our hands up in the air and argue that it's "too hard" when we can adopt such systems already in place.

Re: Ninth Circuit rules NSA's bulk collection of Americans' call records was illegal

#210

Post by laughinghan » Wed, Sep 02, 2020, 11:57 PM UTC

segfaultbuserr wrote: post #26

brlewis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question for history buffs: What are some instances where you'd say, "Gee, I'm glad Presidential pardon was available"?

The standard answer, of course: a war, especially after a national civil war, prosecuting everyone who participated in the enemy's side will be a disaster. Also whistleblowing cases.

To the extremely limited and minimal extent that whistleblowers have been pardoned, good on that president/governor, but I think it is atrocious that whistleblower protection relies on pardon power—we need much, much stronger protections for whistleblowers, in my opinion.

I think 90% of people are basically good but don't really want to stick their neck out of line—which means rules by themselves will never constrain the 5% of people that are malevolent. We need to empower the other 5% of people who are willing to stick their neck out to do the right thing. That includes institutionally empowering whistleblowers.

Snowden committed a crime, sure, prosecute him—just give him a fair trial, for goodness' sake.