Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
TronPaul
Padawan Learner
Posts: 232
Joined: 2011-12-05 12:12pm

Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by TronPaul »

source: The Guardian
NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily
The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April.

The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19.

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered.

The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers.

Under the Bush administration, officials in security agencies had disclosed to reporters the large-scale collection of call records data by the NSA, but this is the first time significant and top-secret documents have revealed the continuation of the practice on a massive scale under President Obama.

The unlimited nature of the records being handed over to the NSA is extremely unusual. Fisa court orders typically direct the production of records pertaining to a specific named target who is suspected of being an agent of a terrorist group or foreign state, or a finite set of individually named targets.

The Guardian approached the National Security Agency, the White House and the Department of Justice for comment in advance of publication on Wednesday. All declined. The agencies were also offered the opportunity to raise specific security concerns regarding the publication of the court order.

The court order expressly bars Verizon from disclosing to the public either the existence of the FBI's request for its customers' records, or the court order itself.

"We decline comment," said Ed McFadden, a Washington-based Verizon spokesman.

The order, signed by Judge Roger Vinson, compels Verizon to produce to the NSA electronic copies of "all call detail records or 'telephony metadata' created by Verizon for communications between the United States and abroad" or "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls".

The order directs Verizon to "continue production on an ongoing daily basis thereafter for the duration of this order". It specifies that the records to be produced include "session identifying information", such as "originating and terminating number", the duration of each call, telephone calling card numbers, trunk identifiers, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, and "comprehensive communication routing information".

The information is classed as "metadata", or transactional information, rather than communications, and so does not require individual warrants to access. The document also specifies that such "metadata" is not limited to the aforementioned items. A 2005 court ruling judged that cell site location data – the nearest cell tower a phone was connected to – was also transactional data, and so could potentially fall under the scope of the order.

While the order itself does not include either the contents of messages or the personal information of the subscriber of any particular cell number, its collection would allow the NSA to build easily a comprehensive picture of who any individual contacted, how and when, and possibly from where, retrospectively.

It is not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone provider to be targeted with such an order, although previous reporting has suggested the NSA has collected cell records from all major mobile networks. It is also unclear from the leaked document whether the three-month order was a one-off, or the latest in a series of similar orders.

The court order appears to explain the numerous cryptic public warnings by two US senators, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, about the scope of the Obama administration's surveillance activities.

For roughly two years, the two Democrats have been stridently advising the public that the US government is relying on "secret legal interpretations" to claim surveillance powers so broad that the American public would be "stunned" to learn of the kind of domestic spying being conducted.

Because those activities are classified, the senators, both members of the Senate intelligence committee, have been prevented from specifying which domestic surveillance programs they find so alarming. But the information they have been able to disclose in their public warnings perfectly tracks both the specific law cited by the April 25 court order as well as the vast scope of record-gathering it authorized.

Julian Sanchez, a surveillance expert with the Cato Institute, explained: "We've certainly seen the government increasingly strain the bounds of 'relevance' to collect large numbers of records at once — everyone at one or two degrees of separation from a target — but vacuuming all metadata up indiscriminately would be an extraordinary repudiation of any pretence of constraint or particularized suspicion." The April order requested by the FBI and NSA does precisely that.

The law on which the order explicitly relies is the so-called "business records" provision of the Patriot Act, 50 USC section 1861. That is the provision which Wyden and Udall have repeatedly cited when warning the public of what they believe is the Obama administration's extreme interpretation of the law to engage in excessive domestic surveillance.

In a letter to attorney general Eric Holder last year, they argued that "there is now a significant gap between what most Americans think the law allows and what the government secretly claims the law allows."

"We believe," they wrote, "that most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted" the "business records" provision of the Patriot Act.

Privacy advocates have long warned that allowing the government to collect and store unlimited "metadata" is a highly invasive form of surveillance of citizens' communications activities. Those records enable the government to know the identity of every person with whom an individual communicates electronically, how long they spoke, and their location at the time of the communication.

Such metadata is what the US government has long attempted to obtain in order to discover an individual's network of associations and communication patterns. The request for the bulk collection of all Verizon domestic telephone records indicates that the agency is continuing some version of the data-mining program begun by the Bush administration in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack.

The NSA, as part of a program secretly authorized by President Bush on 4 October 2001, implemented a bulk collection program of domestic telephone, internet and email records. A furore erupted in 2006 when USA Today reported that the NSA had "been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth" and was "using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity." Until now, there has been no indication that the Obama administration implemented a similar program.

These recent events reflect how profoundly the NSA's mission has transformed from an agency exclusively devoted to foreign intelligence gathering, into one that focuses increasingly on domestic communications. A 30-year employee of the NSA, William Binney, resigned from the agency shortly after 9/11 in protest at the agency's focus on domestic activities.

In the mid-1970s, Congress, for the first time, investigated the surveillance activities of the US government. Back then, the mandate of the NSA was that it would never direct its surveillance apparatus domestically.

At the conclusion of that investigation, Frank Church, the Democratic senator from Idaho who chaired the investigative committee, warned: "The NSA's capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter."
There are a number of other stories on surveillance programs going around. The article above seems to be the one that started the uproar.
What We Don't Know About Spying on Citizens: Scarier Than What We Know
NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program
Intelligence Chief Calls Leaks on U.S. Data Collection ‘Reprehensible’
Concern grows over GCHQ Prism spying allegations
If it waddles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a KV-5.
Vote Electron Standard, vote Tron Paul 2012
blahface
Padawan Learner
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-10-16 01:26am

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by blahface »

I hate how the call data is getting all of the coverage and the greater scandal about collecting internet information is getting largely ignored.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Flagg »

I love how it's all legal and therefore there's no "scandal". Except that it's legal. Which it shouldn't be. But this isn't even really news as we've known about it since 2006.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
The Xeelee
Padawan Learner
Posts: 264
Joined: 2011-09-15 03:59pm

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by The Xeelee »

All of the companies have denied it.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Flagg »

The Xeelee wrote:All of the companies have denied it.
That's weird. I wonder if they had active knowledge and are lying due to laws against them admitting it or if the NSA was hacking them. I'd wonder if the documents were fake except the administration isn't denying it. So either the companies knew and are playing CYA, or they didn't which is actually less troubling to me as cooperation between the government and corporations on nation security shit skeeves me.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Highlord Laan
Jedi Master
Posts: 1394
Joined: 2009-11-08 02:36pm
Location: Christo-fundie Theofascist Dominion of Nebraskistan

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Highlord Laan »

The Patriot Act is a motherfucking abomination that never should have passed. That the Supreme Court hasn't struck it down as the unconstitutional pile of bullshit that it is is beyond asinine and proof positive that all three branches of the government need to be purged and brought to heel.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and cruelty of the Irish.
User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17496
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Alyeska »

Highlord Laan wrote:The Patriot Act is a motherfucking abomination that never should have passed. That the Supreme Court hasn't struck it down as the unconstitutional pile of bullshit that it is is beyond asinine and proof positive that all three branches of the government need to be purged and brought to heel.
It is very rare for the Supreme Court to strike down entire laws. They rule based on the cases brought to them. And almost every case that has made it to SCOTUS has been narrow in scope. So their rulings have been equally narrow. SCOTUS is not a blunt instrument. It is a far more precise one. And its rare when they go for the jugular of a law in question.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

The companies denied it before the director of the NSA declassified part of the programme to defend it. If they're still denying it after that took place (beforehand it would have been illegal for them to) then they're lying.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Simon_Jester »

Alyeska wrote:
Highlord Laan wrote:The Patriot Act is a motherfucking abomination that never should have passed. That the Supreme Court hasn't struck it down as the unconstitutional pile of bullshit that it is is beyond asinine and proof positive that all three branches of the government need to be purged and brought to heel.
It is very rare for the Supreme Court to strike down entire laws. They rule based on the cases brought to them. And almost every case that has made it to SCOTUS has been narrow in scope. So their rulings have been equally narrow. SCOTUS is not a blunt instrument. It is a far more precise one. And its rare when they go for the jugular of a law in question.
To strip out the rhetoric:

There are a lot of provisions in the Patriot Act and similar "security laws" that create huge loopholes in American civil liberties. For a sensible definition of "unconstitutional," they would be unconstitutional. There is something wrong with the system that these provisions have not been brought to the Supreme Court. Part of the problem, perhaps, is that it's hard to make a court challenge against a law that violates your constitutional rights if the government is allowed to make it a state secret that your rights were violated.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Carinthium »

Erm, aren't we forgotting something? Morality is one thing, but how can supporters of a living Constitution claim a right to the proper use of the word legal, particularly in a case like this?
The Xeelee
Padawan Learner
Posts: 264
Joined: 2011-09-15 03:59pm

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by The Xeelee »

It turns out that PRISM is just an API that automates sending requests to companies for data and accepts the responses.
User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 28773
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Broomstick »

Flagg wrote:
The Xeelee wrote:All of the companies have denied it.
That's weird. I wonder if they had active knowledge and are lying due to laws against them admitting it or if the NSA was hacking them. I'd wonder if the documents were fake except the administration isn't denying it. So either the companies knew and are playing CYA, or they didn't which is actually less troubling to me as cooperation between the government and corporations on nation security shit skeeves me.
Admittedly, I haven't followed this closely over the past week due to family things but the statements I have heard from companies seem phrased in a very careful manner. So they'll say "nothing illegal occurred" which may be true from a legal standpoint but could still allow for this sort of secret information gathering if legal under current law. In other words, they're weasels.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Simon_Jester »

Carinthium wrote:Erm, aren't we forgotting something? Morality is one thing, but how can supporters of a living Constitution claim a right to the proper use of the word legal, particularly in a case like this?
Could you please use enough words to make this argument clear to people who don't think exactly like you, and who don't respond exactly the same way to the same dog-whistle phrases as you do?
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Carinthium »

Simon_Jester wrote:
Carinthium wrote:Erm, aren't we forgotting something? Morality is one thing, but how can supporters of a living Constitution claim a right to the proper use of the word legal, particularly in a case like this?
Could you please use enough words to make this argument clear to people who don't think exactly like you, and who don't respond exactly the same way to the same dog-whistle phrases as you do?
"Living constitution" is a very common phrase in American legal jurisprudence, and nowadays it is spreading worldwide. I just assumed you'd know it.

I was extending the phrase a bit beyond it's technical definition to refer to all those who believe a Constitution should not be faithfully followed (whether they think 'faithfully followed' means according to literal meaning or intent). In the original theory, it claims the Constitution is a 'living document' which changes over time through judicial decisions, with judges having the completely legitimate right to change law, rather than merely uphold law, through said decisions.

If a person believes that judges have the legitimate right to change the Constitution through their decisions, then by "Obey the law" effectively they mean "Obey the judges". This opens a massive can of worms, only the start of which is that if judge's rulings are obeyed no matter what they are then the country becomes a Dictatorship of the Judges.
User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15769
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Knife »

Carinthium wrote:
"Living constitution" is a very common phrase in American legal jurisprudence, and nowadays it is spreading worldwide. I just assumed you'd know it.

I was extending the phrase a bit beyond it's technical definition to refer to all those who believe a Constitution should not be faithfully followed (whether they think 'faithfully followed' means according to literal meaning or intent). In the original theory, it claims the Constitution is a 'living document' which changes over time through judicial decisions, with judges having the completely legitimate right to change law, rather than merely uphold law, through said decisions.

If a person believes that judges have the legitimate right to change the Constitution through their decisions, then by "Obey the law" effectively they mean "Obey the judges". This opens a massive can of worms, only the start of which is that if judge's rulings are obeyed no matter what they are then the country becomes a Dictatorship of the Judges.
What a load of bullshit. A living constitution infers it changes to meet modern day issues that the original founders could not have foreseen, but we have to use their frame work to define our laws about said new modern issues. In no way is it 'Obey the Judges' you goober. A bunch of tobacco farmers could not have envisioned modern internet systems; however, their views on the rights to free speech have to be reconciled with modern abilities of speech, including the net. This is the judges job and they 'faithfully follow' the guidelines put down in the constitution to interpret how modern issues relate to 200 year old laws.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4260
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by loomer »

What do you make of Oliver Wendall Holmes's perspective on judges making law, Carinthium, and statute only advising that decision?
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Carinthium »

Knife, how do you distinguish legitimate from illegitimate judicial interpretations? A few American legal questions I'd be curious to hear your views on, and why:

-The Louisana Purchase
-Secession
-Racial discrimination
-Abortion rights

How can you plausibly contend that the judicial decisions surroundign each of these cases was more than simply judicial creativity? And where can you draw a coherent line?

I don't know much about Oliver Wendall Holmes, though from what little I can gather I am opposed to it. What were his arguments for his posistion anyway?
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Common Law allows reference to traditional sources in its lineage stretching back to the Anglo-Saxons, so for starters with Secession the Northwest Territory Ordinance under the Articles of Confederation which explicitly bans secession is a legitimate reference.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Terralthra »

Carinthium wrote:-The Louisana Purchase
There were no judicial decisions regarding the Louisiana purchase. It never came up before the Supreme Court.

As regards the constitutionality, the Constitution says the President may enter treaties, with consent of the Senate (2/3s majority) (Article II, Section 2). It says Congress may regulate territory and property of the US, and govern the process of adding new states to the union (Article IV, Section 2). It also says funding bills must originate in the House.

So, the President entered into a treaty to acquire land, which was approved (overwhelmingly) by the Senate, and the House passed a bill funding it. What's the constitutional problem here?
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Flagg »

How funny is this Snowden assclown? "I don't want to live in a society of constant surviellance" he says from HONG KONG. :lol:
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Carinthium »

Common Law allows reference to traditional sources in its lineage stretching back to the Anglo-Saxons, so for starters with Secession the Northwest Territory Ordinance under the Articles of Confederation which explicitly bans secession is a legitimate reference.
Besides the fact that it is overriden by the intent of the Founding Fathers (who did not discuss secession), it is further overriden by the Tenth Amendment. IF you accept an intentionalist interpretation as superior to a literalist interpretation and IF you can establish the originators of the Tenth Amendment would have rejected secession

Given that the Constitutional Conventions rejected the idea of using force against recalitrant states, the intentionalist case for making secession illegal is on very thin ground.

I think you'd have to be insane or trolling to claim through a literalist interpretation that secession was prohibited, so I'll ignore the possibility.
There were no judicial decisions regarding the Louisiana purchase. It never came up before the Supreme Court.

As regards the constitutionality, the Constitution says the President may enter treaties, with consent of the Senate (2/3s majority) (Article II, Section 2). It says Congress may regulate territory and property of the US, and govern the process of adding new states to the union (Article IV, Section 2). It also says funding bills must originate in the House.

So, the President entered into a treaty to acquire land, which was approved (overwhelmingly) by the Senate, and the House passed a bill funding it. What's the constitutional problem here?
Once the Louisana territory belonged to America, adding new states made sense. But here you're dismissing Thomas Jefferson's concerns that nothing authorises the Federal government to pay money for land in treaties. From a literalist perspective his argument is at least credible, and from an intentionalist perspective he would be a major authority on the matter.

Jefferson's later rationalisations for the purchase lead to the conclusion he probably subconsciously knew he was a hypocrite anyway.
User avatar
loomer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4260
Joined: 2005-11-20 07:57am

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by loomer »

Carinthium wrote: I don't know much about Oliver Wendall Holmes, though from what little I can gather I am opposed to it. What were his arguments for his posistion anyway?
The crux of his position was, y'know, the reality that courts make law, not legislators. Judges are the ones who interpret the law, and in that interpretation create it. Each decision is in fact the birth of a new and highly specific law; all other things are simply guiding factors that predict and aid in how that law will be created. If you're going to argue about judicial interpretation, you really need to look at Holmes and the Legal Realists, and ideally spend some time on the common law theorists as well.
"Doctors keep their scalpels and other instruments handy, for emergencies. Keep your philosophy ready too—ready to understand heaven and earth. In everything you do, even the smallest thing, remember the chain that links them. Nothing earthly succeeds by ignoring heaven, nothing heavenly by ignoring the earth." M.A.A.A
User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by The Duchess of Zeon »

Flagg wrote:How funny is this Snowden assclown? "I don't want to live in a society of constant surviellance" he says from HONG KONG.
What I find fascinating is that I regard Snowden as heroic but think Manning should be shot, due to the different nature and content of what they leaked -- one addressing fundamental constitutional questions of Liberty (Snowden), the other destroying America's diplomatic prestige and putting our soldiers and allies in danger (Manning). I believe you hold, in short, the exact opposite views--though forgive me if I misread your prior stance on Manning. This is an intensely different case than his, though, and I see this level of surveillance as a crushing evil that must be turned back. Secrets in diplomatic correspondence and war are necessary; spying on one's own people is not ever so.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.
Carinthium
BANNED
Posts: 527
Joined: 2010-06-29 03:35am

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Carinthium »

loomer wrote:
Carinthium wrote: I don't know much about Oliver Wendall Holmes, though from what little I can gather I am opposed to it. What were his arguments for his posistion anyway?
The crux of his position was, y'know, the reality that courts make law, not legislators. Judges are the ones who interpret the law, and in that interpretation create it. Each decision is in fact the birth of a new and highly specific law; all other things are simply guiding factors that predict and aid in how that law will be created. If you're going to argue about judicial interpretation, you really need to look at Holmes and the Legal Realists, and ideally spend some time on the common law theorists as well.
That was what I basically understood the Living Constitution posistion to be. However, you are mixing up several things implicitly in your argument.

First, I will point out that except where constitutional interpretation is concerned judges have mostly been brought to heel, even if not fully. Judges act according to the law Parliament has given them- and if they act too far outside what is plausible, they will be sacked. The only exception is with matters of interpreting a formal Constitution- and even then there are informal limits to what judges can get away with and times when the executive simply ignores them.

Second, I will point out that just because judges make law doesn't make it morally acceptable. Judge-made law is retroactive, which creates what any deontological view must concede is a severe injustice. How can a person possibly be expected to obey a law they cannot be expected to understand? And how can they be expected to understand it if it is made retroactively?

Third, I will point out that there is such a thing as interpreting the law as it was supposed to be. When the judges do this, they are not making law in any way.

Fourth, and most important of all, I will point out that Simon Jester claimed that "For a sensible definition of 'unconstitutional', this would be unconstitutional." However, by the Living Constitution theory I'm pretty sure Simon_Jester supports (or at least something similiar), there is no such thing as a Constitution in practice- merely court decisions.

So the statement could be re-interpreted as "The courts should outlaw this". Without any decent moral arguments (since court decisions can always be reversed, a Living Constitutionalist cannot resort to them), he doesn't really have a case.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Leaked: Info on US Data Collection Programs

Post by Flagg »

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Flagg wrote:How funny is this Snowden assclown? "I don't want to live in a society of constant surviellance" he says from HONG KONG.
What I find fascinating is that I regard Snowden as heroic but think Manning should be shot, due to the different nature and content of what they leaked -- one addressing fundamental constitutional questions of Liberty (Snowden), the other destroying America's diplomatic prestige and putting our soldiers and allies in danger (Manning). I believe you hold, in short, the exact opposite views--though forgive me if I misread your prior stance on Manning. This is an intensely different case than his, though, and I see this level of surveillance as a crushing evil that must be turned back. Secrets in diplomatic correspondence and war are necessary; spying on one's own people is not ever so.
My stance on Manning is that he broke laws and should be punished accordingly. But I think he's actually you know, brave in that hes taking responsibility for his actions by pleading guilty to the laws he actually broke. Whether you agree with what he did or not, that's not really in dispute.

Snowden fled the country and wants to be on some pedestal when he's essentially a coward hiding in a country far more authoritarian than the one he just betrayed.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Post Reply