Hacking Team, Computer Vulnerabilities, and the NSA • Hacker News Board

Re: Hacking Team, Computer Vulnerabilities, and the NSA

#71

Post by ikeboy » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 12:56 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #69

ikeboy wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, even if someone at the NSA carried out a program that violated the Constitution, there still wouldn't be jail time. That's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution is strictly a metric by which courts decide what laws are allowed to say. It binds Congress, not other government workers. And there's generally a presumption that a law is legal until decided to be unconstitutional in court, otherwise people…

> Also, even if someone at the NSA carried out a program that violated the Constitution, there still wouldn't be jail time. It is true that such would be unlikely to be prosecuted, especially if it was authorized from above (and, depending on how it was authorized, there might even be a legal defense -- while ignorance of the law is not a defense, reasonable reliance on legal representations of those responsible for…

> but there is a specific criminal statute that applies to government employees acting deliberately contrary to Constitutional rights (deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 USC Sec. 242.)

Thank you for that. I think this would come under the "reasonable reliance on legal representations of those responsible for enforcing the law". Is the fact that a (later-to-be-declared-unconstitutional) law allows something itself a defense? I would strongly expect that to be the case, so to the extent that NSA programs were authorized by the Patriot act, even if said act is unconstitutional, workers would be immune.

In any event, following a later-declared-unconstitutional law does not seem to qualify as "deliberately contrary to Constitutional".

>Sure, the Constitution itself doesn't provide criminal penalties, but there (as noted above) are statutory provisions creating criminal liability for government officers that use their position to deny people Constitutionally-protected rights.

Fair enough.

>Government actions by actors other than Congress, and not justified by appeals to statute, can be decided on Constitutional grounds, both negative (Constitutional limitations) and positive (questions of whether positive authority is granted.)

If an action isn't warranted by statute, why would a court consider Constitutional issues at all? What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_avoidance

Could you give an example?

(It can also bind other legislators, not just Congress, and can bind anyone after a court ruling, but that shouldn't get to criminal liability except insofar as that statute you mentioned above).

Re: Hacking Team, Computer Vulnerabilities, and the NSA

#72

Post by dang » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 4:57 AM UTC

HiYaBarbie wrote: post #61

ikeboy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If years after the Snowden revelation, no one has gotten a court to rule that blatant widespread constitutional violations took place at the NSA, you might want to reconsider your claim that there were blatant violations.

You're disingenuous so I'll just not bother anymore.

> You're disingenuous so I'll just not bother anymore.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

Re: Hacking Team, Computer Vulnerabilities, and the NSA

#73

Post by HiYaBarbie » Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 4:37 PM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #67

HiYaBarbie wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One thousand times NO. The rule of law applies to all equally. This is just your cognitive dissonance talking. You can say "NO" a million times, but Bradley Manning was just imprisoned without trial (and tortured for months.. years?), even though Habeas Corpus was supposed to apply. > The president murders their spouse, expect them to be charged. Why would you expect that? If the president murders his spouse, he's…

You have to accept the rule of law is a worthy ideal to find any real or imagined example of its infringement a problem. To give up on it, to give up on the ideal, to stop raging against the violation of that ideal is to give up on Freedom. I won't.

I can't tell what you're trying to convey. You may just be trolling, of course.

"The rule of law" sounds good and all, but you have to differentiate between laws that are only detrimental to us, and laws that would actually correspond to morals: 1) Don't aggress against others, 2) Don't violate others' property rights.. and those are the only two laws you need.

Now we've got like hundreds of thousands of laws, and they're mostly just meant to benefit the ruling class (and their cronies) at our expense.

The "If You Were King" video clearly shows there is no such thing as a "good ruler". That applies to governments too (because politicians are our modern-day rulers).

But in case you really need it, here's some additional clarification: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

You talk about "freedom", but do you know what it means?

Re: Hacking Team, Computer Vulnerabilities, and the NSA

#74

Post by HiYaBarbie » Fri, Sep 18, 2015, 12:12 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #72

HiYaBarbie wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're disingenuous so I'll just not bother anymore.

> You're disingenuous so I'll just not bother anymore. We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.

That is complete horseshit and you know it. I just made a statement and a decision. He's free to disagree with my assessment, and I'm free to not give a fuck. We're both free to move on with our lives.

But then you decide to ride in on your High Horse to save the day!

Earlier you reprimanded me for saying "shut up", which is just fucking retarded to begin with, and you're engaging in a double standard because his posts were clearly not "substantive" (and thus against the arbitrarily enforced rules).

Just so you know, whenever you ban someone for calling things as they are, and trying to get people think for themselves, you're essentially supporting your own enslavement.

You're probably a psychopath yourself, of course, but most likely not protected from the potentially perpetual tyranny the world will slide into if sanity doesn't spread widely enough.

Re: Hacking Team, Computer Vulnerabilities, and the NSA

#75

Post by SEJeff » Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 3:13 PM UTC

HiYaBarbie wrote: post #58

harry8 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thousand times NO. The rule of law applies to all equally. This the ideal insofar as it is agreed that our current implementation does not achieve that it is an agreed deficiency. The president murders their spouse, expect them to be charged. By definition the rule of law applies to all. The End. Period. The price of freedom is eternal... etc.

> One thousand times NO. The rule of law applies to all equally. This is just your cognitive dissonance talking. You can say "NO" a million times, but Bradley Manning was just imprisoned without trial (and tortured for months.. years?), even though Habeas Corpus was supposed to apply. > The president murders their spouse, expect them to be charged. Why would you expect that? If the president murders his spouse, he's…

No not really. As a US Soldier, you sign away 100% of your constitutional rights when you voluntarily sign the contract.

So many civilians get this wrong it isn't funny, but the only code that applies to US military members is the UCMJ (uniformed code of military justice), of which Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning was a member of.

Source: I'm a US Army veteran and learned all about this.