United States Files Civil Lawsuit Against Edward Snowden

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

excalibur wrote: post #28

r00fus wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a constitutional right to privacy? Where is that enshrined? I say this as someone who values privacy for all.

Try the 4th Amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Post by colejohnson66 » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

bb88 wrote: post #42

excalibur wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try the 4th Amendment: > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If you're an originalist (and I'm not saying that I am), data in transmit is not necessarily protected by that amendment If your data has left your house, is it really your data, or is it Google's say?

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:23 PM UTC

busterarm wrote: post #49

ceejayoz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anything, it's Classic POTUS, as his predecessor attempted to prosecute more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all prior POTUS' combined. It should be noted that "all prior POTUS' combined" winds up being four prosecutions since 1945 prior to Obama. Double of nearly-zero is still nearly-zero. https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10...

Seven of the eleven prosecutions under the act since its passing in 1917. It was intended to be a rare power. We shouldn't try to diminish that. That administration also grossly misused their Section 702 powers passed with the 2008 FISA ammendments as well. https://www.newamerica.org/oti/blog/history-fisa-section-702...

Post by whytaka » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:24 PM UTC

tyri_kai_psomi wrote: post #46

zer0faith wrote: post #17

Sadly, they will attempt to make an example out of Snowden to discourage anyone from EVER doing something like this again.

The thing people seem unable to do with Snowden is separate the intention of his actions with the impact. I have no doubt he had the right intentions. Informing the people of the gross violations of civil liberties is a noble endeavor. However, the impact that it had and the manner in which he conducted it, and the channels he went through to do so had a dramatically negative impact on sources and methods. Real peopl…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #63

bb88 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're an originalist (and I'm not saying that I am), data in transmit is not necessarily protected by that amendment If your data has left your house, is it really your data, or is it Google's say?

Re: originalists: The framers couldn’t’ve imagined the internet, and, despite that, what you say on the internet is protected by the first amendment as it is speech. Why would the fourth amendment be any different?