You'd think terrorism/spy cases would be a small minority of overall cases. And not that hard to justify a warrant. Seems odd that they feel it is important to skip the warrant step for such cases.
Why not require a warrant? The more checks and balances the better.
If it was a speed thing, the FBI could show "good faith" [1] and say that a judge should verify the request post-facto and (in)validate it.
But of course it doesn't do that, because the FBI doesn't operate in "good faith", and because it would prefer as little oversight as possible - which is what this request is really about anyway: the removal of judicial oversight, even beyond its rapidly growing abuse of NSLs [2].
Its not a speed thing. There are already many ways to speed the warrent process. They can be obtained remotely from a judge with an electronic signature. And they can be obtained in good faith with the judge only reviewing the evidence after granting the warrent. Like how much easier does it need to be?
Wow whoever came up with the whole 'in the name of terrorism' is a goddamn genius. Pretty much a free card to get access to anything and everything for the sake of 'security'.
Indeed. Anytime you hear the words "children" or "national security" or "terrorism" being bandied about, you should crank up the sensitivity on your bullshit detector.
Until a few years ago a disciplinary spanking of a child was allowed in New Zealand and a woman was found not to have broken the law when she used a horse riding crop. TLDR an NZ style spanking is bad for the child.
Not surprising. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but growing up they used leather belts where I'm from. Pretty sure it's legal. To me that's worse than a riding crop.
Using "terrorism" as a threat is simply the new "communism" arguments from the 1950s-1980s. It's just that this new era has no foreseeable end in site.
There has been, and always will be, some type of terrorists. So its a perfect opportunity to use this threat (whether real in some cases and not in some cases) to get something approved that you could not normally.
At least with the end of of the USSR, most of the old Cold War communism scare tactics went away. Unfortunately, I don't really foresee and end in the use of terrorism threats to get funding for some new technology or bill to erode more rights.
That's the thing. "Terrorism" like "communism" previously is described as threat where regular laws are not strong enough and here needs to be an exception. Communism went away but terrorism will most likely never go away.
>...according to Hardt and Negri's Empire, the rise of Empire is the end of national conflict, the "enemy" now, whoever he is, can no longer be ideological or national. The enemy now must be understood as a kind of criminal, as someone who represents a threat not to a political system or a nation but to the law. This is the enemy as a terrorist....In the "new order that envelops the entire space of... civilization", where conflict between nations has been made irrelevant, the "enemy" is simultaneously "banalized" (reduced to an object of routine police repression) and absolutized (as the Enemy, an absolute threat to the ethical order"[2]).[3]
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
It is even more interesting, today, when you see the statement that prompted Göring to respond as such.
> "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." [0]
It is funny how quickly Congress delegated that power to the executive.
Standing in a security queue a couple of years ago at LA airport after a long haul flight listening to someone say "I can understand why they are like this after what happened" is as close to homicidal as I've ever felt.
"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 advantage of post-9/11 fears to push the PATRIOT Act, and the "new normal" that terrorism posed such a grave and existential threat that nothing, not even the Constitution or the rule of law, should be allowed to get in the way of fighting it.
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.
That would be the Patriot Act that was voted for by (among others) Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy, and whose reauthorization in 2006 was voted for by Barack Obama?
Call to Firefox devs: restore the option to keep history for a specified number of days. Why was this option ever removed? It originated all the way back in Netscape.
Also: make a prominent "clear last hour" option for mobile; I hate following a link from someone and finding a ton of tracking cookies have just been added.
I'm using ublock0 of course. I tend not to install lots of other addons because it's difficult to evaluate them without a significant time investment. What is a good self-destructing cookie addon that preserves site logins?
Edit: While I'm here, Firefox should also provide an Android URL intent that opens links in a private tab.
I can't imagine ever surfing the internet without blocking ads, javascript and cookies. There's just nothing to evaluate other than which plugin to perform those tasks.
"self-destructing cookies", on the desktop, lets you choose to destroy cookies 1) when you close the tab, 2) when you close the browser or 3) never. On android it's a toggle; presumably 1 and 3.
The android version of noscript is inexplicably named "noscript nsa". It has a bunch of options but I never fiddle with them. You can't install it via the usual firefox plugin system for reasons I don't understand, so instead you have to get it here:
You want the link "Download NSA++ (NoScript 3.5 alpha)". It's been alpha for as long as I've been using it. A recent change to firefox means you probably have to use about:config to temporarily enable the installation of plugins from outside the official firefox plugin store thing.
Perhaps the developers are trying to demonstrate that you can't have security AND convenience.
I use this Firefox addon. It destroys cookies set by a tab when you close it, by default. You can turn it off selectively per-website, so it's easy to stay logged in when you want to be.
The title seem to suggest this has something to do with browser histories, but as far as I can tell from reading the article it's much worse: they want your ISP to keep a log of the web sites/other services you are using, and they want to get this log by simple request to your ISP (no VSL, subpoena, or warrant).
So restoring this option wouldn't help, maybe only using TOR or some VPN proxy would.
Eew. The only reason telephone service provides similar records is because it was necessary for billing by the minute with different rates for different regions. But the Internet doesn't require any of that, so we certainly shouldn't have ISPs logging all of our traffic, let alone turning records over without a warrant.
Jacob Applebaum, one of Tor's developers, left recently under a cloud [1]. I've seen a statement by Mr. Applebaum that Tor operations will not be affected as a result of his departure.
Hey that's fine, no need for a warrant. You just have to let the judge know that you think that person is a terrorist. And also what reasons led you to think they're a terrorist. Oh, and also what it is you're looking for, and why you think you'll find it.
Eventually someone might figure out the right words to use to counteract that strategy.
"Judge Otherguy's tough-on-crime strategy led to a $1500 DUI charge for an innocent grandmother on SSI who was poisoned by her doctor. Vote Judge Soandso to protect the elderly."
I think the fact that they completely invented a fictitious science to prosecute cases should have brought serious investigation and televised congressional hearings with daily news coverage...
>The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.
Every few weeks I remind myself that J. Edgar Hoover retired as director of the FBI in 1972 after running the organization for 48 years. Somebody that fundamental to the formation of an organization creates a culture.
> Adam McGaughey, the webmaster of a fan site for the television show Stargate SG-1, was charged with copyright infringement and computer fraud. During the investigation, the FBI invoked a provision of the Act to obtain financial records from the site's Internet Service Provider.
I never heard this one before. Using terrorism laws to investigate copyright infringment on a scifi TV show fan site.
A running theme in these cases:
> Millions of phone records were harvested, fed into a database and were searched for patterns of calling to and from numbers of known terrorists. To date, there have been no announced arrests from this program. [..] Furthermore, this information is databased and maintained indefinitely by the FBI.
The title is inadvertently misleading - the records sought under the amendment are transaction records on the remote end (closer to access logs) rather than your actual browser history.
Last time I checked the only real need for persistence in a browsing session is to store bookmarks and to store massive ASCII blobs full of jQuery so I can read another bloated NY Times article. Browser vendors really need to start bundling this code into the browser so we don't have to download it every single time we visit a site (We all religiously surf in private browsing mode these days, right?).
Because if we aren't surfing with even baseline privacy, then articles like this pale in comparison to Big Brother nosing around in the underpants of your browser history.
Well it honestly depends what classifies a terrorism or spy case as such. I could see how this could be easily abused in many regards, but also how it could help someone do their job. Double edged sword really, but I do wish the people had more of a say in these matters instead of just hearing about more liberty being lost via the news :/
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 never being arrested nor charged with any crime.
History shows that it's impossible to trust the government's promise that they'll restrict any new capabilities to the worst bad guys.
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't have extreme obvious political bias.
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.
however, I feel you are so convinced you are right that you are not looking at the actual issue and you intellectually impoverish yourself as a result. Gerrymander is an accusation you hurl at opponents in the majority who don't do what you want (like calling them uncivil even if they have not been, eh!?). However, when your party is in you do the same thing... not because you are a hypocrite (like the hypocritical games played over Supreme Court nominations) but because there is no way to draw redistricting boundaries that is actually fair; many factions will be disadvantaged by aggregating votes in districts, there is no way to avoid it.
Instead of downvoting me more, google a supposed gerrymander map and try it on a city you know, you'll see that you'll be making political choices that you favor. You might be "fair" in your mind because you consider yourself an independent so you will favor neither Democrats nor Republicans, but instead your gerrymander will favor some other metrics that you prefer.
You might even go so far as try to create a very evenly divided legislature that will have difficulty passing any laws, and you'll look at me and say "see, I did it"... then immediately after that I'll have to listen to your unsophisticated drivel about how gridlock is destroying our country and if only everybody was "civil" like you, beautiful compromises would emerge.
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 win the senate. Apparently, he had to draw the districts in rather unusual shapes to achieve this, and they kind of ended up looking like a salamander. Hence, Gerrymandering.
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.
> 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 .
I've presented a pretty terrible solution before and I'll say it again to illustrate a point.
Let's say we make the whole nation into a single constituent district. Now, every voter will cast one vote for one representative and the top N candidates with the most votes win.
This is a terrible solution but even this is better than what we have today which i hope goes far too show how bad the system we have today is...
Systems design should strive to make it resistant to corruption and try to not rely on the goodness of people making correct/impartial choices.
(I am fully aware of my hypocrisy when I claim to support democracy around the world except obviously {{}} can't be in government. I hope that this just shows that I can't even trust myself to be correct/consistent/impartial.)
Bottom line is that every vote within a jurisdiction should be equally equal regardless of geographical location. It might lead to people we don't like getting elected but that shouldn't dissuade us. However, I have to agree with President Obama in this -- the only way to effect any change here is to get people involved in very large numbers. Get people to move to these safe districts. I can't see how we can accomplish change here with the levels of apathy we have...
The situation with supposed gerrymandering is more subtle than you give it credit for, and you therefore are either hopelessly naive about voting constituencies, or you would soon see on inspection that your "impartial system" would utterly fail.
To try to forge a simple example to illustrate it to you (and yes, this is spoonfeeding to an HN audience who refuses to do the work themselves when downvoting is so much simpler): people interact with their neighbors and they squabble with their neighbors and there are many more factions on a myriad of issues than even a multiparty system can allow for. But neighbors unite over many issues, like "we don't want a sewage treatment plant here", or "we need more parking".
If you have a "system" that does not give local people a loud voice on local issues, your system will be overturned in favor of one that does. For instance, the American Revolution and the Brexit are the same basic issue: people far away should not be deciding our local affairs.
So now that your system's been overturned, we have a system of local districts... but local districts are filled with people who do not agree on all issues...
It's all gerrymandering, there is no such thing as not gerrymandering, including in the mathematically degenerate cases of Athenian (or New England town meeting) democracies. Factorial of 0 has to be 1, because...because... "gerrymander"
Surely believing that you, of all other people (many billions of them!) only you have "thought about it" enough? That strikes me as a delusional belief to hold.
first of all, oh come off it, when I said everybody else, I meant "everybody else here on HN who is downvoting me and not balanced by upvoters in my corner, and since anybody can upvote and only a small faction can downvote, we are talking a serious tilt". (In a microcosm of the larger gerrymander debate, your studied obtuseness on this issue is forcing me to spill a lot of words to explain a notion that should be obvious to you, but I apparently am the only one amongst you and me who is thinking about that.)
But to your point(less), considering the world population, I've looked, I've googled the gerrymander topic hard; and I've tried to engage the wikipedia "talk" community in hopes of finding birds of a feather, people actively interested in the issue. (You give it a try, I am the only one saying it... Oh wait, it's much easier for you to avoid learning anything and just to drop a tart comment.)
I am certain that many others (still a tiny minority of the planet) have noticed that when you draw district boundaries that you must inherently advantage some and disadvantage others; a subset of those notice more sophisticated political things about it, and a tiny subset probably notice that it is a deeper d(N-color geographic map projection onto a hyperdimensional Venn diagram problem)/dt.
But that notion does not filter out. The concept of a "gerrymander" is very dear to the hearts of relatively sophisticated people (unsophisticated people don't know the word). I imagine it's not taught properly in political science curricula.
My claim is, there is no way to draw legislative districts that is not a gerrymander (unless you adopt the non-standard definition that a gerrymander is any drawing that is not geometrically compact/convex)
The original Gerrymander political cartoon: it was a clever rhetorical point, I'm in favor of cleverness and rhetorical flourish.
Further noticing that all districting is political, ideological, or doomed to be rejected by an outraged populatce, I don't know how clever that is, but I can't find anybody other than me who has noticed it and stands up and says it.
False. My "most parent" comment attracted downvotes well before any of my other comments. I went to edit it to improve it but I think downvotes turn off the edit button or something (not much time had transpired). So what exactly did you find objectionable about my tone there? My guess is I "Socratically" challenged the firmly held beliefs of pinheads that they are politically and intellectually sophisticated when they are simply not; you should not defend the mob.
In terms of your suggestion about not drawing district lines at all, I can (seriously) see no merit to it at all. That could be because while you could have made an actual argument for your point, instead you simply stated it as I did in my post... I guess according to your comment calculus I should accuse you of not following the tone that we prefer and downvote you?
Pay more attention to the election and government processes. Inform people. Most people don't know about civil forfeiture (even the name is enough to bore many people), so they don't know cops are stealing from people.
A people that doesn't pay attention to the government gets screwed by the government every time, no matter what rules are in place. That's why Lawrence Lessig is trying to change the rules to encourage people to take part.
Most people don't care about X (civil forfeiture, whistleblowers, Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act, etc.)
> Pay more attention to the election and government processes.
Yes but this completely ignores the fact that most Americans are apathetic to these issues.
What I learned this year was that (as another poster put it) "Gerrymandering, fraud, bribery, voter suppression" were visible, they would also be tolerated.
Also, if you're under investigation by the FBI for espionage, most Americans will STILL vote for you. And the other major half will vote for someone who is clearly racist and (imho) dumb as nails.
> The judge in my case was clear about a number of issues. First, the very definition of “espionage” is incredibly broad. Espionage is the act of “providing national defense information to any person not entitled to receive it.” Period. My judge also said that there did not have to be mens rea, or criminal intent, for there to be guilt in an espionage case. And the concept of “harm to the national security” was irrelevant.
--John Kiriakou (He was the first CIA officer to be convicted for passing classified information to a reporter) [1]
Unfortunately, I've also learned the same in the last year.
My interactions with people after reaching adulthood have also taught me that people have different inclinations, ethics, intentions and internal reward systems. Some people gain satisfaction by helping others, or doing 'good;' while some others, gain satisfaction from hurting others, or feeling superior to them. Unfortunately I've met a lot of terrible people, and that makes me wonder what we should reasonably come to expect in who we collectively elect?
I've just never really solved how to apply it to politics. I've long felt that if you're going to have 2 "houses", one ought to be appointed by ballot as a check/balance on the elected members (a variation of hereditary peers in many ways but without the same bias).
It does seem to be the case that someone who doesn't really want the job, but is otherwise qualified, is the best person for it in this case. It seems to me to be very likely that this is true for both politicians, as well as LEO, including the FBI, CIA, and probably all other three letter agencies as well.
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 to take things away from crime lords even if the charges are not proved. Now CF is coming after everyone.
I think the right solution here is to starve the beast. Force the government to lower taxes and leave them with substantially less money for needless wars, enforcing idiotic laws and other welfare schemes.
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.
>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).
Insightful comment.
I hope for a future where we focus on using government to govern ourselves in a way in which we reward people for doing bad things, and punish people for doing good things. Right now it seems to be a tool that is mostly focused to benefit those in power, at the expense of others. One cost of this is that the definition of what is unacceptably unjust is becoming increasingly inane. Our liberties are eroding.
Correction: that is (probably obvious) supposed to say, "reward people for doing good things, and punish people for doing bad things." My comment is uneditable now, though.
>India has idiotic laws but the government simply does not have enough money to enforce any laws
Kinda same in Russia. There is even a national joke: "The severity of Russian laws is alleviated by the lack of obligation to obey them." But it's excuse of course, we must change the things.
Starving the beast doesn't work -- programs and infrastructure you want funded aren't and programs you don't want supported are fully funded. This has always been the way. Furthermore, under funded governments tend to much more corrupt.
You also can't lower taxes without hurting employment and nobody wants higher unemployment.
> You also can't lower taxes without hurting employment and nobody wants higher unemployment.
This is counter to virtually everything I've seen asserted about economics, as well as the raw world data on hours worked compared to tax rates.
There is a "leisure effect" whereby getting more money for the same amount of work (the effect of lowering taxes) means that people choose additional leisure over additional work, because they don't need the extra money from additional work as badly. It is much less strong than the effect whereby raising the returns on work leads people to do more of it, because they're getting more out of the extra work than they used to.
What are you thinking of when you make this claim?
The founding fathers also "understood" that negroes were subhuman and women existed solely to bear children. There is no reason to base modern decisions on 250-year-old morals.
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.
Getting your money back would be very simple - just show you withdrew it from the bank and it was deposited normally. If you can't show you withdrew it from a bank, show it was earned from a job and show pay stubs. If you can't show it was earned from a job, get testimony from people who employed you.
If you can't do any of that - you may be a drug dealer or drug/cash runner.
I'm fine with you having some kind of moral outrage at asset forefiture, but while it is currently the law, there are ways of going about getting your money back. Again, feel free to argue that you shouldn't need to prove where it came from, but, while you do need to prove it, you have those options available to you in pretty much any circumstance where you can save up $11k.
We've gone from "the kid is actually guilty", to "well if the kid is innocent it would be trivial to get his money back", to "well if the kid is innocent it's not trivial to get his money back but because it was a national case there's bound to be someone willing to do the work for him out of altruism".
While these may all be true, on your way to be right you've discarded everyone who doesn't get media spotlight, is innocent, and still has their assets forfeited.
No one was disputing your original point anyway - yes, there are ways to get your money back - which you shouldn't have lost in the first place. That's the whole problem with these half-assed, poorly thought-through laws - they are intended to only be applied to criminals, so by assumption the person they are applied to is a criminal, so it's no big deal if they have to jump through ridiculous, possibly life-ruining hoops to go back to their normal life.
Another point that isn't really discussed - after sacrificing the civil liberties of people who have to go through civil forfeiture, is there a worthwhile effect on the drug lords and drug runners, or is this a case like DRM?
I think the problem is that you are arguing whether the law should exist or not - I was only arguing that, given that the law exists, it is possible to reacquire your money if it was legally earned.
I don't understand why the FBI isn't prepared to just act illegally in terrorism cases. If they're so damn sure that there's going to be an attack, just do the warrantless search and prevent the attack. And just be fine with the fact that they won't get to prosecute the bad guys -- the attack was thwarted, and that's good enough for me. And if they don't find anything? Well, Lucy's got some 'splainin to do!
We don't want them acting illegally just because they feel it's necessary, but if someone really, truly believes they are stopping an attack by doing so, maybe let them do it that way and face the consequences. That's what the real heroes in movies do; they save the day, and then accept the punishment for their misdeeds in the process. A real hero would be willing to spend some time in jail if it was the only way to save thousands of lives (a point I do not concede, but for the sake of argument...).
Exactly right. Maybe there's a rare edge case that calls for illegal activity. If so, and if law enforcement does it, they need to explain their actions so we can determine whether they were right and should be excused or wrong, and should be sanctioned. No transparency, no accountability, no progress.
If the FBI asks for the power to access N without a warrant, it should be automatically be required to get two warrants from two separate judges to get access.
>"The FBI wants to access N without a warrant." Sane answer: no, for all values of N.
You're repeating a common fallacy, namely that warrants are a sine qua non condition for search and seizure. This is false. In the United States, one enjoys constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
While a warrant goes a very long way towards making a search or seizure reasonable, the two are not to be equated.
A few notable exceptions where warrants are not required:
- The so-called motor-vehicle exception
- The so-called "in hot pursuit" exception
I think we share the same feeling towards this particular case, but it's important to understand the legal arguments being made. The FBI is essentially claiming that it is reasonable to search browser history without a warrant.
No, I'm saying warrants should be a required condition for any search or seizure, not that they are currently. Law enforcement's job shouldn't be easy.
There are plenty of good reasons to conduct search and seizures without warrants. Simple example: a cop hears someone screaming for help inside of an apartment.
With respect (really!), I think you have a bit of an ideological blind-spot. I can relate, as I used to have the same one (and probably still do in some cases).
Don't we already have laws to go after criminals? Calling them a terrorist doesn't make them more or less criminal. And do we have so many of these boogeymen?
Did she make a mistake when reporting? Seems like an editor should have caught the error in the headline.
Meanwhile, maybe it's an effort by this media outlet to downplay, and run interference in favor of government entities, so that people roll their eyes at the misinformation and simply presume the government as incompetant.
150 comments
[ 6.9 ms ] story [ 249 ms ] threadWhy not require a warrant? The more checks and balances the better.
Is there a way to make obtaining warrants more transparent and straightforward?
It honestly seems like they could design a better system that doesn't get rid of the checks, increases citizen trust, and solves their issues.
But of course it doesn't do that, because the FBI doesn't operate in "good faith", and because it would prefer as little oversight as possible - which is what this request is really about anyway: the removal of judicial oversight, even beyond its rapidly growing abuse of NSLs [2].
[1] - https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160605/09111034626/appea...
[2] - https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2016/04/14/keeping...
mine has been turned up to 11 for about 15 years now.
-- Rahm Emanuel
There has been, and always will be, some type of terrorists. So its a perfect opportunity to use this threat (whether real in some cases and not in some cases) to get something approved that you could not normally.
At least with the end of of the USSR, most of the old Cold War communism scare tactics went away. Unfortunately, I don't really foresee and end in the use of terrorism threats to get funding for some new technology or bill to erode more rights.
News Flash: no organization will ever willingly give power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_%28Negri_and_Hardt_book...
--Hermann Göring
> "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." [0]
It is funny how quickly Congress delegated that power to the executive.
[0]: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp
All of these things are the direct result of the Bush Administration taking advantage of post-9/11 fears to push the PATRIOT Act, and the "new normal" that terrorism posed such a grave and existential threat that nothing, not even the Constitution or the rule of law, should be allowed to get in the way of fighting it.
Yep. The "Bush Administration".
Also: make a prominent "clear last hour" option for mobile; I hate following a link from someone and finding a ton of tracking cookies have just been added.
Edit: While I'm here, Firefox should also provide an Android URL intent that opens links in a private tab.
"self-destructing cookies", on the desktop, lets you choose to destroy cookies 1) when you close the tab, 2) when you close the browser or 3) never. On android it's a toggle; presumably 1 and 3.
The android version of noscript is inexplicably named "noscript nsa". It has a bunch of options but I never fiddle with them. You can't install it via the usual firefox plugin system for reasons I don't understand, so instead you have to get it here:
https://noscript.net/nsa/
You want the link "Download NSA++ (NoScript 3.5 alpha)". It's been alpha for as long as I've been using it. A recent change to firefox means you probably have to use about:config to temporarily enable the installation of plugins from outside the official firefox plugin store thing.
Perhaps the developers are trying to demonstrate that you can't have security AND convenience.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/self-destruct...
BetterPrivacy completely destroys Flash localstorage on close, which is important because SDC doesn't get them.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/betterprivacy...
So restoring this option wouldn't help, maybe only using TOR or some VPN proxy would.
[1] https://blog.torproject.org/blog/statement
So... basically a warrant.
I can see the attack ad now:
"Judge Soandso thinks that terrorists deserve a greater right to privacy than you do. Judge Soandso protects terrorists. Vote Judge Otherguy."
Kinda turns this into a rubber stamp.
"Judge Otherguy's tough-on-crime strategy led to a $1500 DUI charge for an innocent grandmother on SSI who was poisoned by her doctor. Vote Judge Soandso to protect the elderly."
Lately?
I think the fact that they completely invented a fictitious science to prosecute cases should have brought serious investigation and televised congressional hearings with daily news coverage...
...but nope.
Scrap it and start over.
>The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.
It wasn't even 2 years after the 2001 PATRIOT act that the DOJ was using the provisions for drug cases.
A probably non-exhaustive list is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversial_invocations_of_t...
> Adam McGaughey, the webmaster of a fan site for the television show Stargate SG-1, was charged with copyright infringement and computer fraud. During the investigation, the FBI invoked a provision of the Act to obtain financial records from the site's Internet Service Provider.
I never heard this one before. Using terrorism laws to investigate copyright infringment on a scifi TV show fan site.
A running theme in these cases:
> Millions of phone records were harvested, fed into a database and were searched for patterns of calling to and from numbers of known terrorists. To date, there have been no announced arrests from this program. [..] Furthermore, this information is databased and maintained indefinitely by the FBI.
Because if we aren't surfing with even baseline privacy, then articles like this pale in comparison to Big Brother nosing around in the underpants of your browser history.
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 never being arrested nor charged with any crime.
History shows that it's impossible to trust the government's promise that they'll restrict any new capabilities to the worst bad guys.
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't have extreme obvious political bias.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
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.
The explicit goal of gerrymandering is to render this remedy ineffectual.
however, I feel you are so convinced you are right that you are not looking at the actual issue and you intellectually impoverish yourself as a result. Gerrymander is an accusation you hurl at opponents in the majority who don't do what you want (like calling them uncivil even if they have not been, eh!?). However, when your party is in you do the same thing... not because you are a hypocrite (like the hypocritical games played over Supreme Court nominations) but because there is no way to draw redistricting boundaries that is actually fair; many factions will be disadvantaged by aggregating votes in districts, there is no way to avoid it.
Instead of downvoting me more, google a supposed gerrymander map and try it on a city you know, you'll see that you'll be making political choices that you favor. You might be "fair" in your mind because you consider yourself an independent so you will favor neither Democrats nor Republicans, but instead your gerrymander will favor some other metrics that you prefer.
You might even go so far as try to create a very evenly divided legislature that will have difficulty passing any laws, and you'll look at me and say "see, I did it"... then immediately after that I'll have to listen to your unsophisticated drivel about how gridlock is destroying our country and if only everybody was "civil" like you, beautiful compromises would emerge.
It's named after the former Governor of Massachusetts, Elbridge Gerry, who redrew the districts to ensure his party would win the senate. Apparently, he had to draw the districts in rather unusual shapes to achieve this, and they kind of ended up looking like a salamander. Hence, Gerrymandering.
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.
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 .
Let's say we make the whole nation into a single constituent district. Now, every voter will cast one vote for one representative and the top N candidates with the most votes win.
This is a terrible solution but even this is better than what we have today which i hope goes far too show how bad the system we have today is...
Systems design should strive to make it resistant to corruption and try to not rely on the goodness of people making correct/impartial choices.
(I am fully aware of my hypocrisy when I claim to support democracy around the world except obviously {{}} can't be in government. I hope that this just shows that I can't even trust myself to be correct/consistent/impartial.)
Bottom line is that every vote within a jurisdiction should be equally equal regardless of geographical location. It might lead to people we don't like getting elected but that shouldn't dissuade us. However, I have to agree with President Obama in this -- the only way to effect any change here is to get people involved in very large numbers. Get people to move to these safe districts. I can't see how we can accomplish change here with the levels of apathy we have...
To try to forge a simple example to illustrate it to you (and yes, this is spoonfeeding to an HN audience who refuses to do the work themselves when downvoting is so much simpler): people interact with their neighbors and they squabble with their neighbors and there are many more factions on a myriad of issues than even a multiparty system can allow for. But neighbors unite over many issues, like "we don't want a sewage treatment plant here", or "we need more parking".
If you have a "system" that does not give local people a loud voice on local issues, your system will be overturned in favor of one that does. For instance, the American Revolution and the Brexit are the same basic issue: people far away should not be deciding our local affairs.
So now that your system's been overturned, we have a system of local districts... but local districts are filled with people who do not agree on all issues...
It's all gerrymandering, there is no such thing as not gerrymandering, including in the mathematically degenerate cases of Athenian (or New England town meeting) democracies. Factorial of 0 has to be 1, because...because... "gerrymander"
But to your point(less), considering the world population, I've looked, I've googled the gerrymander topic hard; and I've tried to engage the wikipedia "talk" community in hopes of finding birds of a feather, people actively interested in the issue. (You give it a try, I am the only one saying it... Oh wait, it's much easier for you to avoid learning anything and just to drop a tart comment.)
I am certain that many others (still a tiny minority of the planet) have noticed that when you draw district boundaries that you must inherently advantage some and disadvantage others; a subset of those notice more sophisticated political things about it, and a tiny subset probably notice that it is a deeper d(N-color geographic map projection onto a hyperdimensional Venn diagram problem)/dt.
But that notion does not filter out. The concept of a "gerrymander" is very dear to the hearts of relatively sophisticated people (unsophisticated people don't know the word). I imagine it's not taught properly in political science curricula.
My claim is, there is no way to draw legislative districts that is not a gerrymander (unless you adopt the non-standard definition that a gerrymander is any drawing that is not geometrically compact/convex)
The original Gerrymander political cartoon: it was a clever rhetorical point, I'm in favor of cleverness and rhetorical flourish.
Further noticing that all districting is political, ideological, or doomed to be rejected by an outraged populatce, I don't know how clever that is, but I can't find anybody other than me who has noticed it and stands up and says it.
In terms of your suggestion about not drawing district lines at all, I can (seriously) see no merit to it at all. That could be because while you could have made an actual argument for your point, instead you simply stated it as I did in my post... I guess according to your comment calculus I should accuse you of not following the tone that we prefer and downvote you?
A people that doesn't pay attention to the government gets screwed by the government every time, no matter what rules are in place. That's why Lawrence Lessig is trying to change the rules to encourage people to take part.
Most people don't care about X (civil forfeiture, whistleblowers, Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act, etc.)
> Pay more attention to the election and government processes.
Yes but this completely ignores the fact that most Americans are apathetic to these issues.
What I learned this year was that (as another poster put it) "Gerrymandering, fraud, bribery, voter suppression" were visible, they would also be tolerated.
Also, if you're under investigation by the FBI for espionage, most Americans will STILL vote for you. And the other major half will vote for someone who is clearly racist and (imho) dumb as nails.
--John Kiriakou (He was the first CIA officer to be convicted for passing classified information to a reporter) [1]
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.
[1] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/all_whistleblowers_shoul...
My interactions with people after reaching adulthood have also taught me that people have different inclinations, ethics, intentions and internal reward systems. Some people gain satisfaction by helping others, or doing 'good;' while some others, gain satisfaction from hurting others, or feeling superior to them. Unfortunately I've met a lot of terrible people, and that makes me wonder what we should reasonably come to expect in who we collectively elect?
We might do better drafting from a pool of otherwise qualified people who really don't want the job!
I've just never really solved how to apply it to politics. I've long felt that if you're going to have 2 "houses", one ought to be appointed by ballot as a check/balance on the elected members (a variation of hereditary peers in many ways but without the same bias).
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 to take things away from crime lords even if the charges are not proved. Now CF is coming after everyone.
I think the right solution here is to starve the beast. Force the government to lower taxes and leave them with substantially less money for needless wars, enforcing idiotic laws and other welfare schemes.
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.
Insightful comment.
I hope for a future where we focus on using government to govern ourselves in a way in which we reward people for doing bad things, and punish people for doing good things. Right now it seems to be a tool that is mostly focused to benefit those in power, at the expense of others. One cost of this is that the definition of what is unacceptably unjust is becoming increasingly inane. Our liberties are eroding.
You also can't lower taxes without hurting employment and nobody wants higher unemployment.
This is counter to virtually everything I've seen asserted about economics, as well as the raw world data on hours worked compared to tax rates.
There is a "leisure effect" whereby getting more money for the same amount of work (the effect of lowering taxes) means that people choose additional leisure over additional work, because they don't need the extra money from additional work as badly. It is much less strong than the effect whereby raising the returns on work leads people to do more of it, because they're getting more out of the extra work than they used to.
What are you thinking of when you make this claim?
Because in non-corrupt situations it's not your responsibility to explain yourself to not be robbed by the police.
If you can't do any of that - you may be a drug dealer or drug/cash runner.
I'm fine with you having some kind of moral outrage at asset forefiture, but while it is currently the law, there are ways of going about getting your money back. Again, feel free to argue that you shouldn't need to prove where it came from, but, while you do need to prove it, you have those options available to you in pretty much any circumstance where you can save up $11k.
While these may all be true, on your way to be right you've discarded everyone who doesn't get media spotlight, is innocent, and still has their assets forfeited.
No one was disputing your original point anyway - yes, there are ways to get your money back - which you shouldn't have lost in the first place. That's the whole problem with these half-assed, poorly thought-through laws - they are intended to only be applied to criminals, so by assumption the person they are applied to is a criminal, so it's no big deal if they have to jump through ridiculous, possibly life-ruining hoops to go back to their normal life.
Another point that isn't really discussed - after sacrificing the civil liberties of people who have to go through civil forfeiture, is there a worthwhile effect on the drug lords and drug runners, or is this a case like DRM?
1. Does the United States Constitution permit the government to do this?
2. What would this power look like if it were expanded dramatically in scope or in time?
3. What would this obligation look like if exercised indifferently by unaccountable people?
4. What would your worst enemy do with this power?
The list goes on, but points 2, 3, and 4 should be sufficient to cause pause for even the most aggressive supporter of expanding government powers.
[0] https://popehat.com/2016/06/02/libertarianism-as-ten-questio...
You're repeating a common fallacy, namely that warrants are a sine qua non condition for search and seizure. This is false. In the United States, one enjoys constitutional protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
While a warrant goes a very long way towards making a search or seizure reasonable, the two are not to be equated.
A few notable exceptions where warrants are not required:
- The so-called motor-vehicle exception
- The so-called "in hot pursuit" exception
I think we share the same feeling towards this particular case, but it's important to understand the legal arguments being made. The FBI is essentially claiming that it is reasonable to search browser history without a warrant.
There are plenty of good reasons to conduct search and seizures without warrants. Simple example: a cop hears someone screaming for help inside of an apartment.
With respect (really!), I think you have a bit of an ideological blind-spot. I can relate, as I used to have the same one (and probably still do in some cases).
This is why we have a court system. There is (in principle) remedy for the latter, but not for a failure to help someone in immediate distress.
Looking at browser history might not hurt most people, but getting a warrant isn't hard, and it's the proper way to do things.
Meanwhile, maybe it's an effort by this media outlet to downplay, and run interference in favor of government entities, so that people roll their eyes at the misinformation and simply presume the government as incompetant.