The NSA watches you poop.

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
599
chaos_sl said:
He said, basing his pronouncement off of firm, verified facts and not rumors or speculation at all.
Click to expand...
Way of the World when everything needed to prove or disprove your point is hidden behind the phrases "Top Secret" or "Classified" or "SCI" or "National Security".
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
tad10_sl said:
Sure you don't buddy. So I have different burden of proof then you? Interesting.

You get to pretend to be an arrogant fuck that doesn't know shit about the law and I'm expected to be reasonable? Also interesting.

But let's just examine your first request briefly shall we: facts? You want facts about the invasion of my privacy: the recording of my phone calls and metadata by the NSA, photocopying by the USPS of both sides of my mail, the trolling by the NSA of this and other forums?

I'd love to give you facts... But it seems to me the Obama administration has made it plenty clear the "facts" of the NSA surveillance are a national security issue and something that can't be revealed to us common folk. So no you don't get any facts, you little prick. Nor do you get a legal analysis, though of course you are welcome to read whatever un-edited and/or un-redacted EFF/ACLU complaints are available for their various legal efforts.

You're a stupid troll. You should have stuck to your request for legal authority and not brought up a request for 'facts'.
Click to expand...
Uh, it's not a different burden of proof, its just that you shoulder the burden, not I. If you gonna try and sound smhart by throwing legal terminology around, then perhaps you should watch a few episodes of law and order and try to not look like a fucktard. And yes, you shoulder the burden because you are the one claiming the law is unconstitutional. ALL LAWS passed by a democratically elected Congress and signed by a president is PRESUMPTIVELY constitutional. That has been stated multiple times by the SCOTUS. SO yes, if you're gonna whine and bitch with your sandy vag, YOU have to shoulder the burden. Kapiche ?

But I guess since you have a chipmunk's understanding of constitutional law, you wouldn't know that.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
khalid_sl said:
Sorry bro, Im not your legal assistant. If you can't see how the only oversight to such widespread surveillance being a rubber-stamp court then I am not going to try and convince you. Hell, even the president now (who has been shilling for this shit hard) has realized this shit isn't going to fly.

Also, as far as citing caselaw, even if caselaw currently supported it, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be immediately changed.
Click to expand...
The point im trying to make is that you people who have already concluded the law is unconstitutional have jumped the gun. Admit it, you know the plain letter of the law but you don't know anything about how it has been applied. If this law was so obviously unconstitutional, it would have never passed congress and it would have never been signed by the POTUS. The fact that it was passed in the first place means there is plenty of ambiguity. You cannot proclaim the law is unconstitutional without a doubt because YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. I don't know, but I sure as fuck won't jump to conclusions and proclaim the law's illegality when I know for a fact I'm not the smartest person in the world.
 
tad10

tad10

Elisha Dushku
5,533
599
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
you are the one claiming the law is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Since I tend to follow my own advice (don't feed the troll) I'm just going to hit this one point and go back to the EQNext thread.

While there are probably good arguments for why the Patriot Act and/or the AUMF and/or wtf the NSA is operating under in addition to the Patriot Act are unconstitutional that's all for another day, for today I'm just going to correct a pretty significant misunderstanding you seem to have.

I'm not arguing about the law as written, I'm arguing about the actions taken. A law can be constitutional as written, but not as applied.

Anyway, enjoy your Police State, it's good to see who'll be the first to start wearing the brown shirts.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
The government flies over your farm with an airplane and sees you growing weed in your back yard. They arrest you. This was deemed constitutional.

The government looks at your house with heat sensing equipment from across the street and sees you doing illegal shit in your house with their equipment. This was deemed unconstitutional.

In both situations, the government "spied" on you using advanced technology (a plane, heat sensing equipment) and yet the outcome in both situations are different. None of this is "obvious" to the layman, but if you cared, you can easily go read the case law to understand why. Point is: Don't fucking make assumptions when you're ignorant.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
tad10_sl said:
Since I tend to follow my own advice (don't feed the troll) I'm just going to hit this one point and go back to the EQNext thread.

While there are probably good arguments for why the Patriot Act and/or the AUMF and/or wtf the NSA is operating under in addition to the Patriot Act are unconstitutional that's all for another day, for today I'm just going to correct a pretty significant misunderstanding you seem to have.

I'm not arguing about the law as written, I'm arguing about the actions taken. A law can be constitutional as written, but not as applied.

Anyway, enjoy your Police State, it's good to see who'll be the first to start wearing the brown shirts.
Click to expand...
Great. You have an opinion -- that's actually much better than most Americans. I just want you to realize that your opinion is shit and isn't the gospel truth.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
On the constitutional analysis...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...276402574.html
is an op-ed arguing that it is unconstitutional.
The secrecy of these programs makes it impossible to hold elected officials and appointed bureaucrats accountable. Relying solely on internal governmental checks violates the fundamental constitutional principle that the sovereign people must be the ultimate external judge of their servants' conduct in office. Yet such judgment and control is impossible without the information that such secret programs conceal. Had it not been for recent leaks, the American public would have no idea of the existence of these programs, and we still cannot be certain of their scope.

Even if these blanket data-seizure programs are perfectly proper now, the technical capability they create makes it far easier for government to violate the rights of the people in the future. Consider why gun rights advocates so vociferously oppose gun registration. By providing the government with information about the location of private arms, gun registries make it feasible for gun confiscation to take place in the future when the political and legal climate may have shifted. The only effective way to prevent the confiscation of firearms tomorrow is to deprive authorities of the means to do so today.

Like gun registries, these NSA and CFPB databanks make it feasible for government workers to peruse the private contents of our electronic communication and financial transactions without our knowledge or consent. All it takes is the will, combined with the right political climate.
Click to expand...
Then this op-edhttp://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...a-surveillanceargues that it might be legal but it isn't constitutional.
To the extent that the FISC sanctioned PRISM, it may be consistent with the law. But it is disingenuous to suggest that millions of Americans? e-mails, photographs and documents are ?incidental? to an investigation targeting foreigners overseas.

The telephony metadata program raises similar concerns. FISA did not originally envision the government accessing records. Following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Congress allowed applications for obtaining records from certain kinds of businesses. In 2001, lawmakers further expanded FISA to give the government access to any business or personal records. Under section 215 of the Patriot Act, the government no longer has to prove that the target is a foreign power. It need only state that the records are sought as part of an investigation to protect against terrorism or clandestine intelligence.

This means that FISA can now be used to gather records concerning individuals who are neither the target of any investigation nor an agent of a foreign power. Entire databases ? such as telephony metadata ? can be obtained, as long as an authorized investigation exists.
Click to expand...
From the Washington post we then havehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/op...anted=all&_r=0...
This view is wrong ? and not only, or even mainly, because of the privacy issues raised by the American Civil Liberties Union and other critics. The two programs violate both the letter and the spirit of federal law. No statute explicitly authorizes mass surveillance. Through a series of legal contortions, the Obama administration has argued that Congress, since 9/11, intended to implicitly authorize mass surveillance. But this strategy mostly consists of wordplay, fear-mongering and a highly selective reading of the law. Americans deserve better from the White House ? and from President Obama, who has seemingly forgotten the constitutional law he once taught.
Click to expand...
which then goes on at length talking about each of the programs that is a problem.


Now clearly there are legal theories on the other side (for example,thisis a very long post arguing that it is currently legal). However, like I said, if this is allowed to stand as legal precedence, it seems to me that the 4th amendment has a MUCH narrower view than I am comfortable with.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
khalid_sl said:
On the constitutional analysis...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...276402574.html
is an op-ed arguing that it is unconstitutional.


Then this op-edhttp://articles.washingtonpost.com/2...a-surveillanceargues that it might be legal but it isn't constitutional.



From the Washington post we then havehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/op...anted=all&_r=0...

which then goes on at length talking about each of the programs that is a problem.


Now clearly there are legal theories on the other side (for example,thisis a very long post arguing that it is currently legal). However, like I said, if this is allowed to stand as legal precedence, it seems to me that the 4th amendment has a MUCH narrower view than I am comfortable with.
Click to expand...
It should be interesting to you that the last article you linked is the only one that actually bothered to cite caselaw as opposed to appealing to amorphous crap like "the letter and spirit" of federal law. Either way, regardless of what side you fall under, you should still come away from this more skeptical.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
And one last thing before I head off to diner. One of the most important question that ANY court asks when they consider a 4th amendment issue is: whether the person being allegedly illegally searched had a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Regardless of whether you support the wiretapping or not, how many people here can actually look me in the eye and honestly tell me that they reasonably believed that all the shit they do online is 100% confidential/private ?
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
Regardless of whether you support the wiretapping or not, how many people here can actually look me in the eye and honestly tell me that they reasonably believed that all the shit they do online is 100% confidential/private ?
Click to expand...
So the standard is 100% confidential and private. Seriously?
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
If this law was so obviously unconstitutional, it would have never passed congress and it would have never been signed by the POTUS.
Click to expand...
I missed this post of yours and it is completely disingenuous on multiple levels. The argument isn't that the laws that were passed are unconstitutional, it is that they are being applied in a much broader and comprehensive way than anyone at the time understood the law to mean.

Also, it is pretty laughable to say that Congress and the President won't pass unconstitutional laws. It happens all the time. If they never passed shit that wasn't unconstitutional. the Supreme Court would have a much easier time.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
khalid_sl said:
So the standard is 100% confidential and private. Seriously?
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

You can find examples there. Basically, if you put information out to the public, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's why it's not unconstitutional or illegal if you and I have a conversation over dinner and I secretly record you admitting to a crime. If you made the comment to someone else, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy, because it's perfectly foreseeable that the person you spoke to would talk to someone else/the cops. This isn't anything new and it's been the bedrock of constitutional law for decades. The argument could be made, then (successful or not, I do not know) that if you email another person, then you've waived your right to privacy, because you've voluntarily communicated that information to another person who then has every right to do whatever the fuck they want with it. That's just one example of why this isn't fucking obvious and open/shut as some would make it out to be.

Also, it is pretty laughable to say that Congress and the President won't pass unconstitutional laws. It happens all the time. If they never passed shit that wasn't unconstitutional. the Supreme Court would have a much easier time.
Click to expand...
That's not what i'm saying at all. It very well may be unconstitutional. THE POINT is you cannot presume to say you know for sure that it is, because this isn't an obvious open/shut issue like you and some others have made it out to be. All I fucking want is you to humble yourself and consider, just for a moment, that you might be wrong. I have specifically stated that I do not know if what's being done is constitutional or not.
 
W

W4RH34D_sl

shitlord
661
3
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy

You can find examples there. Basically, if you put information out to the public, then you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. That's why it's not unconstitutional or illegal if you and I have a conversation over dinner and I secretly record you admitting to a crime. If you made the comment to someone else, you have no reasonable expectation to privacy, because it's perfectly foreseeable that the person you spoke to would talk to someone else/the cops. This isn't anything new and it's been the bedrock of constitutional law for decades. The argument could be made, then (successful or not, I do not know) that if you email another person, then you've waived your right to privacy, because you've voluntarily communicated that information to another person who then has every right to do whatever the fuck they want with it. That's just one example of why this isn't fucking obvious and open/shut as some would make it out to be.
Click to expand...
This is where I take issue. If I mail someone a letter, and someone reads it or intercepts it, or takes it from the mailbox it is a felony. Email should be treated the same. A private email is not public, otherwise we should have access to all of the NSA's email as there is no expectation of privacy.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy
Click to expand...
Instead of linking something to try and prove your superiority, try and read what I fucking said. Yes, you are damn right I expect privacy when I send emails, text messages and the like.I don't expect 100% perfect privacy though, which seems to be your own made up standard. Obviously it is possible that someone would listen in to it. So yeah, I sure as fuck bhave an expectation of privacy with electronic communications.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
W4RH34D_sl said:
This is where I take issue. If I mail someone a letter, and someone reads it or intercepts it, or takes it from the mailbox it is a felony. Email should be treated the same. A private email is not public, otherwise we should have access to all of the NSA's email as there is no expectation of privacy.
Click to expand...
Probably. But there isn't any authority that says that the NSA making a copy and sticking it in a corner of a server somewhere without reading it is illegal. The issue is unsettled because the precedent doesn't exist.
 
S

Soysauceonrice_sl

shitlord
558
0
khalid_sl said:
Instead of linking something to try and prove your superiority, try and read what I fucking said. Yes, you are damn right I expect privacy when I send emails, text messages and the like.I don't expect 100% perfect privacy though, which seems to be your own made up standard. Obviously it is possible that someone would listen in to it. So yeah, I sure as fuck bhave an expectation of privacy with electronic communications.
Click to expand...
I refer you to your wiki link a few posts up. Unless you genuinely thought that I've never read the 4th amendment in my entire life, in which case I apologize. What's good for the goose right ?
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Soysauceonrice_sl said:
It very well may be unconstitutional. THE POINT is you cannot presume to say you know for sure that it is, because this isn't an obvious open/shut issue like you and some others have made it out to be. All I fucking want is you to humble yourself and consider, just for a moment, that you might be wrong. I have specifically stated that I do not know if what's being done is constitutional or not.
Click to expand...
Sure, it is possible that the courts will find this constitutional. The courts have ruled plenty of fucking ridiculous shit in the past. That doesn't mean it sure as fuck doesn't violate any reasonable person's definition of a warrant requiring some probable cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.