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

81–90 of 151 posts

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

#81

Post by EdHominem »

oh_sigh wrote: post #71
csense wrote: post #43

A couple decades ago when the government wanted to get civil forfeiture powers, they said it was only going to be for the worst organized crime bosses and drug lords. Then within the last few years, a black kid who takes his life savings -- $10,000 cash -- and moves across the country to start a new life is (apparently entirely legally) relieved of it by two police officers and has no means to get it back, despite ne…

If you're referring to the case I think you are, it is pretty clear that that "black kid" was actually a money runner for drug dealers. He claimed to have withdrawn the money from his bank, but could never provide any kind of evidence that he had done this.

And what case proved that assertion?

Because in non-corrupt situations it's not your responsibility to explain yourself to not be robbed by the police.

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

#83

Post by krapp »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #72
krapp wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"government" in general didn't decide US law enforcement and intelligence agencies needed to make terrorism a top priority, and it didn't decide the US needed "extrajudicial" options for dealing with terrorism, such as torture, kidnapping and indefinite detainment in a death camp in Cuba, and didn't decide to wage a war against "terrorism." All of these things are the direct result of the Bush Administration taking a…

You're missing some of the things that have been done before the Bush Administration. Operation Northwoods is alarming as it is, and that's back in the early 60's.

Sure, but the FBI demanding warrantless access to browser history in order to fight terrorism, and expecting to get it, is a direct result of Bush administration policy.

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

#84

Post by sheepleherd »

slavik81 wrote: post #79
sheepleherd wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

any creation of voting districts is a Gerrymander. What method do you favor, and how is yours better?

That's simply inaccurate. Gerrymandering is specifically the redrawing of electoral districts in a purposefully unfair manner . It's commonly prevented by setting up independent commissions to do the redrawing of districts, rather than allowing the incumbent politicians to draw the lines directly. It's named after the former Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, who redrew the districts to ensure his party would…

You (and everybody else) don't understand what I mean because you haven't thought about it as much as I have.

By what principle do you think districts should be drawn--they must be redrawn due to shifting population--so do you intend to draw exaggerated patterns to spread out minority opinions, or to clump them together? Or are you suggesting that you flip coins topologically? What if flipping coins results in a salamander of some sort, you want to use soap films to find the minimum enclosing surfaces? "Mathematically neutral" methods of drawing districts will result in some parts of the country randomly enhancing minority opinions while other parts of the country will randomly diffuse them, with results that will lead partisans to complain bitterly.

My point is, there IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. There is only your preference.

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

#85

Post by sheepleherd »

Zikes wrote: post #75
sheepleherd wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

any creation of voting districts is a Gerrymander. What method do you favor, and how is yours better?

Wikipedia's definition[1] is "In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries." It can be clearly recognized where it occurs, and there are plenty of examples in the Wikipedia article. I don't have the skills or knowledge to say exactly how it should be done, only that it shouldn…

if you scour the discussion history of the wikipedia page you will find my comments many months ago disputing that the article implies that there is some "fair" way to draw districts without laying out what that way should be.

I contend that the system we use, the gerrymandering system, is the most defensible, it's democratic. Don't like it, vote for somebody else.

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

#86

Post by tn13 »

hx87 wrote: post #66
tn13 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government can not be trusted. Something that the founding fathers and understood and warned centuries ago despite their own inherent flaws. Individual liberty is something that we need to defend actively from the government and that can not happen unless we take a diametrically opposite stance and do not concede even and inch of ground. Example: People who supported civil forfeiture essentially thought that its okay…

Taxes aren't the problem--it's the fees, law-enforcement-as-revenue-service, and other hacks to get around the lack of tax revenue that makes government nasty. I'd much rather pay taxes and zero out all government fees, civil forfeiture and non-criminal fines.

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 would have taken us 2 years and several $$$ in bribes. We paid money to a contractor who build the road without any clearance and no government person ever showed up because they had more important job to do.

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).

If gov. shuts down war against drugs they will start war against sex. American women enjoy freedom and safety that Indian women can only dream of and yet our government is busy passing all sort of laws to "protect woman". This is because these are empty minds working as devils workshop.

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

#87

Post by JadeNB »

sheepleherd wrote: post #84
slavik81 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simply inaccurate. Gerrymandering is specifically the redrawing of electoral districts in a purposefully unfair manner . It's commonly prevented by setting up independent commissions to do the redrawing of districts, rather than allowing the incumbent politicians to draw the lines directly. It's named after the former Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, who redrew the districts to ensure his party would…

You (and everybody else) don't understand what I mean because you haven't thought about it as much as I have. By what principle do you think districts should be drawn--they must be redrawn due to shifting population--so do you intend to draw exaggerated patterns to spread out minority opinions, or to clump them together? Or are you suggesting that you flip coins topologically? What if flipping coins results in a sala…

> You (and everybody else) don't understand what I mean because you haven't thought about it as much as I have.

Even if true, this is surely the least civil way, and one of the least convincing ways, to state the fact.

> My point is, there IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. There is only your preference.

That seems to be a different claim to:

> any creation of voting districts is a Gerrymander

(which you said above). Two reasons why:

1. As slavik points out, a gerrymander is, by definition, intentionally (not incidentally, accidentally, or unavoidably) unfair.

2. More importantly, "all district-drawing schemes are unfair", while probably true, does not mean that they are all equally unfair, or that we should give up on seeking fairness. It seems rather like http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm .

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

#88

Post by JadeNB »

sheepleherd wrote: post #85
Zikes wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia's definition[1] is "In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries." It can be clearly recognized where it occurs, and there are plenty of examples in the Wikipedia article. I don't have the skills or knowledge to say exactly how it should be done, only that it shouldn…

if you scour the discussion history of the wikipedia page you will find my comments many months ago disputing that the article implies that there is some "fair" way to draw districts without laying out what that way should be. I contend that the system we use, the gerrymandering system, is the most defensible, it's democratic. Don't like it, vote for somebody else.

> Don't like it, vote for somebody else.

The explicit goal of gerrymandering is to render this remedy ineffectual.

Post reply on HN