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

Obama administration wanted warrantless access rights to most US email

news.cnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 100 posts

Re: Obama administration wanted warrantless access rights to most US email

#61

Post by hzzn »

tjic wrote: post #52
danudey wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever you may think about Joe Biden, I can guarantee you he's a better VP than Sarah 'Drill baby drill' Palin (who now, ironically, has a TV series on Discovery where she talks about the natural beauty of Alaska that she kept trying to destroy).

> I can guarantee you he's a better VP than Sarah 'Drill baby drill' Palin Thanks. Your extensive footnoting and logical arguments definitely convinced me of your point of view.

(The comment I am about to make is not supported by a link to a paper published by a widely respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal. You can safely assume that it contains nothing but falsehood and moderate accordintly.)

It's possible that the purpose of the comment was merely to express an opinion, and that the commenter had no intention of persuading you, or anyone else, of anything.

Re: Obama administration wanted warrantless access rights to most US email

#62

Post by RyanMcGreal »

hugh3 wrote: post #54
roc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particularly when those cuts are delivered by people wrapped in the flag, promising safety. It seems we have healthier debate over the government's ability to pass blanket public-space no-smoking laws, than the executive's new-found legal ability to ignore the constitution, the judicial and the legislative at its whim. You can get tens of thousands to protest the deficit, or health care reform, or gay rights - but th…

Actually an awful lot of people protested against this kind of thing when it was George W. Bush doing it.

Given the organizations supporting Yahoo, the same people are still protesting it today.

Re: Obama administration wanted warrantless access rights to most US email

#63

Post by GrandMasterBirt »

mixmax wrote: post #57
weaksauce wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the whole "I'm not doing anything wrong, why should I care if they are watching me" standpoint that most people have. The problem of course is that the people watching you are the ones who decide what's wrong. Of course there is the famous other quote: "If I have nothing to hide then why do you need to watch me?" or something like that.

Maybe you meant this: First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left…

I like that quote. It is a good description of what happens when people ignore basic rights infringements. The core of the US's glory is our rights, and if we let them be taken away for any reason... well... that's not why I came to the US.

In any case, what was the quote from Ben Franklin? "He who lets his rights be taken away in the name of security, deserves neither."

Re: Obama administration wanted warrantless access rights to most US email

#65

Post by ErrantX »

btilly wrote: post #22

What is the real difference between this and what China was trying to do to gmail? The government wants to get access to private emails of people they don't like without having to demonstrate real evidence that the person has done anything wrong. The biggest difference to my eyes is that the one targets "human rights activists who would like to bring down the government" while the other targets "terrorists". Yeah, ye…

The difference is simple. This is being hashed out in a courtroom. And has a high liklihood of not happening. :-)

Re: Obama administration wanted warrantless access rights to most US email

#66

Post by mixmax »

GrandMasterBirt wrote: post #63
mixmax wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you meant this: First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left…

I like that quote. It is a good description of what happens when people ignore basic rights infringements. The core of the US's glory is our rights, and if we let them be taken away for any reason... well... that's not why I came to the US. In any case, what was the quote from Ben Franklin? "He who lets his rights be taken away in the name of security, deserves neither."

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Re: Obama administration wanted warrantless access rights to most US email

#67

Post by anamax »

RevRal wrote: post #18
protomyth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people will protest what they know about. Regardless of your opinion on the people taking part in the tea party protests, there are a lot of people taking time off work or away from other activities to go to rallies. The economy is the front and center issues right now, and I really don't know what has to happen for online privacy to get a stage. I am more concerned about the organizations that were so vocal…

Some technical understanding of this issue is prerequisite to understanding how the negative consequences outweigh the positive. Most of the tea-bagging protesters are protesting stuff that is way over their head, but they don't need a good technical understanding of since the issues are dumbed down to terms which fit their competence. I'm afraid this issue has been dumbed down as well. "If you have nothing to hide,…

> Most of the tea-bagging protesters are protesting stuff that is way over their head

Oh really? You need to keep up. While the story used to be "ignorant", when folks actually looked at them, instead of relying on the US-lef "anyone who opposes me must be dumb" stereotype, they found that the Tea Party folks were, on the whole, better educated etc.

Thus the new attack is that they're elitists. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04...

Which reminds me - you do know that "tea bagging" is a reference to a sex act, right? Since you're using it as a pejorative....

Frankly, I think that you're hosed if you're relying on hipsters.

Re: Obama administration wanted warrantless access rights to most US email

#68

Post by jacquesm »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #26
ytilibitapmoc wrote: post #2

If only the silence meant that people were sharpening their pitchforks. Unfortunately, this is the USA -- we would rather die by a thousand paper-cuts than stand up and say "No!"...

Obama selected Joe "I wrote the Patriot Act" Biden as his VP. This is the same Joe Biden who tried to ban Turing machines because they could be used to encrypt files that the government would be unable to crack. Plenty of people knew this, but voted for Obama anyway. For many people, "the government is violating privacy rights" is not a genuine policy position. It's just a club to beat their political opponents with.

An audience of voters that has been given two options, one of which is a disaster on wheels will choose the lesser of two evils. America needs a serious third party contender.

Re: Obama administration wanted warrantless access rights to most US email

#69

Post by jacquesm »

tjic wrote: post #52
danudey wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever you may think about Joe Biden, I can guarantee you he's a better VP than Sarah 'Drill baby drill' Palin (who now, ironically, has a TV series on Discovery where she talks about the natural beauty of Alaska that she kept trying to destroy).

> I can guarantee you he's a better VP than Sarah 'Drill baby drill' Palin Thanks. Your extensive footnoting and logical arguments definitely convinced me of your point of view.

I'm happy he just said what he meant, instead of all the 'extensive footnoting' that sometimes goes on here. Footnotes do not make your arguments more solid, on the web you can find articles to link to support just about any position.

The logical arguments are nice though.

Post reply on HN