← Back to context

Comment by jfoutz

13 years ago

Just to be clear, which law was it that you think they broke?

I'd happily agree what the NSA did was just as wrong as, say, making it to easy to get mortgages. But the law and morality don't always agree.

36 comments

jfoutz

Reply
WildUtah  13 years ago

"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."

  • pvnick  13 years ago

    Exactly. This is THE law in America. Not some crap that the congress du jour baked up

  • timr  13 years ago

    PRISM, as described, is a warrant-based program. But you're right...we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a proper angry mob.

    • staunch  13 years ago

      A warrant that applies to everyone, and is not based on probable cause, quite clearly violates the Fourth Amendment.

    • mtgx  13 years ago

      A warrant that says "allow us to get all the data on everyone in the country, with no specific targets".

      That's not much of a warrant that respects the 4th amendment.

      13 replies →

    • spikels  13 years ago

      I love all the doublespeak around this issue but "warrant-based" is a new one. I'm pretty sure that does NOT mean a warrant specifically naming each person whose information was collected. Or does it?

      You need a lawyer to translate anything our leaders (biz, gov or other) say. It's all form with very little substance. If you thought you heard something definitive you almost certainly misunderstood.

      3 replies →

  • anigbrowl  13 years ago

    Looking at telephone records is not a search under teh 4th amendment. See Smith v. Maryland. It's the Supreme Court that makes these determinations, and quoting the constitution without regard to how the SC has interpreted only shows that you haven't read article III properly.

  • btilly  13 years ago

    Playing Devil's advocate here.

    The government position is that it isn't a search until they subject the data to analysis. Nor is it a seizure when you still have your data. Thus they draw a line between collecting data (making sure they have it) and actually searching it. Therefore broad data collection does not violate the 4th so long as they always get specific warrants before actually searching that data.

    • ahallock  13 years ago

      But how do we know that? There is no accountability. They do everything under secrecy. It might be different if we had a third-party, non-governmental agency verifying that they are not violating the 4th amendment.

      Why have no accountability and no transparency if they were not going to violate our privacy? I'm flipping the "If you have nothing to hide" bit on them.

      But even if there were oversight, the main issue is the potential for abuse. Having all that data in the hands of an entity that can imprison you is a pretty frightening idea. Sure, maybe they're following the rules now, but in desperate times, people can behave immorally and radically. Do not trust other human beings, even if they are under the umbrella of "government". Look at what evil humans have done in the last century alone and you'll agree that we should limit the potential for abuse as much as possible.

      1 reply →

  • dm2  13 years ago

    That is a strong argument but I'd like to play devils advocate for a second.

    First, "unreasonable" is a key word. Is the copying of data without any noticeable inconvenience to the citizen considered unreasonable? Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping.

    Second, the Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago. During that time PHYSICAL searches and property seizures were the primary concern. Nobody could even fathom the concept of the Internet or the role it would play in today's society.

    • freeman478  13 years ago

      > Another key word would be "seized", is copying considered seizing? Seizing is legally defined as the removal of property, one might argue that no seizure was ever made during this wiretapping.

      This reminds me of the copyright talks but obviously when it's citizens doing it, copying is stealing but when it's NSA, copying is not an issue because it does not remove anything ...

eightyone  13 years ago

"In a rare public filing in the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), the Justice Department today urged continued secrecy for a 2011 FISC opinion that found the National Security Agency's surveillance under the FISA Amendments Act to be unconstitutional. Significantly, the surveillance at issue was carried out under the same controversial legal authority that underlies the NSA’s recently-revealed PRISM program." [1]

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret...

  • jfoutz  13 years ago

    That is a good argument. However, the NSA isn't breaking the law until the supreme court strikes down the FISA amendments, right?

    I don't understand exactly what happens when a law is found unconstitutional. I can't imagine an analyst at the NSA would be retroactively charged with a crime, would they?

    • eightyone  13 years ago

      I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think that's correct. I believe they have to abide by the FISC ruling until a higher court rules in their favor. Obviously they don't want to take it to a higher court because then the public would find out. There's a reason why they are trying to keep the documents of the ruling a secret. Any lawyers here feel free to chime in.

samstave  13 years ago

Taxation without representation.

Personally, I think that anyone against this should show a civil disobedience by refusing to pay taxes.