Slashdot Mirror
Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned
schwit1 writes "The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
and as such is just like pretty much all of the others. The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
Seriously... When will Americans realize that both parties have exactly the same goal: To control and manipulate everything that every citizen possesses or can produce - even thoughts/minds/beliefs - for their own gain alone.
Screw investing in gold - invest in lead and brass....
Same as the old boss, indeed. What amazes me is that we're still a two party system and that people continue to think that their vote matters.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
So, just because there is one are on which two administrations agree and you don't, does it mean that there are no meaningful differences between G.W.Bush and Obama at all?
There are certainly meaningful differences, but at the end of the day the top prosecutors in the United States still want those X-Ray glasses so they can watch the citizens for criminal conduct.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I would regard it as a credible difference if, when you asked Obama the reason, he gave an intelligible answer, regardless of whether the answer was one you liked or not.
What I'd like to see from Obama is saying to his insiders, "OK, I see why you want this and I'll back you on it, but you're going to have to explain yourself to the public a lot better than you used to".
That's what I hated most about Bush, how entitled he felt about operating in the shadows. From a leadership perspective, bad policy is often better than no policy. I accept mistakes. The problem was that the little cretin never stood up for his reasons. That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.
It's the surrounding discussion that makes the difference.
Some would argue that since we get the same basic results from either party, we really have a one party system and its all smoke and mirrors between the 2.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So, because a warrant won't let them go on a fishing expedition for other crimes, they don't pursue the crimes that they do know about? That's like a kid saying: "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball away".
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
The problem with trying to apply old precedents to this matter is that digital databases can be so much vaster than any real place being searched. If the cops have a warrant to search the safe in someone's house for something illegal, they aren't allowed to go search the cupboards. Only if the evidence is in plain sight as they go about their business are they allowed to use it.
This is very relevant. What if the cops bust in to your house looking for marijuana in your safe, based on an anonymous tip, and don't find anything? Maybe they find you've stored chemicals in your kitchen cabinets in violation of federal law for storage, or maybe you've got some prescription med bottles for a person who is no longer living in the house. If the cops are allowed to rifle through everything a private citizen owns, and they get creative, they can almost certainly find SOMETHING to charge you with. Their perspective is "since you were accused, you must be guilty of SOMETHING...let's find what it is because I don't want to go back to the station empty handed"
Well, now, if suppose you were a credit bureau like Equifax. If the cops had the authority to search your database to get someone's credit record in order to prove illegal activity, they could search the records of every citizen in the united states because those records are in "plain sight" within the database! Bet they could find SOMETHING if they are allowed to basically open an investigation against every citizen of the country.
And for those arguing "if we're soft on crime, we're letting teh criminals win". The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals' than any other nation on earth as a % of population. Now, I'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocent, just that this extreme level of imprisonment is not an appropriate way for society to deal with those who misbehave. (I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent)
More to the point, his slogan was "Change you can believe in," not "Change you're going to like."
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Anyone who wants to give power to the state - like Obama, just about every Democrat, and way too many Republicans - has to TAKE it from WE THE PEOPLE.
Want to lower health care costs and expand benefits? Take away the PEOPLE'S FREEDOM TO MAKE THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE CHOICES.
Want to pay for giant social programs and/or wars? Take away the PEOPLE'S WEALTH.
What the current government want so far:
The current government is so power-crazy that it's become suicidal in its attempts to speed through legislation over half the country opposes, regardless of how it's going to affect the 2010 elections. You'd think they'd take their foot off the pedal and slow down a bit to address the #1 issue voters have right now, unemployment.
...if Bush had done this people would be reacting differently. Hope and Change is a joke.
Wow, just...wow.
gitmo is the the process of closing; sadly there ahs been republican push back as well as republican pundent FUD about containing them. Like we can't keep them locked up an American soil. sheesh
Healthcare is moving along; again there is large republican pushback, and a very large insurance lobby fight it, again. So far he ahs gotten farther along then anyone else had. Did you expect him to just take office, close gitmo and institute healthcare day 1? One of the best qualities president Obama has, IMO, is his recodnition that these things need a smart plan.
"But now he doesn't sign this landmine treaty thingie, he doesn't promise any kind of CO2 reduction goals, "
Did you bother to read why? seriously, it would hamstring the US to agree to those goals. The joke here is that China still manages third world status because of all the benefits even though they are clearly no longer a third world.
"he extends the PATRIOT Act and now this"
That was disappointing.
DO you do anything besides complain and show off your ignorance?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.
Well, you all voted for change...
Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.
When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.
I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
... but only for a while until the money-changers sneak back into the temple. That's why you have to have them periodically, like defragging and virus-scanning your hard drive. We seem to have fallen behind on the schedule... we haven't had a decent game-changing revolution in a while, have we? Now we have a bunch of people muttering "let them eat cake" again. Does anyone still know how to make guillotines? We'll need quite a few this time.
They all know their jobs and the limits of their office and mission. For various reasons, both good and bad, they seek more power and expansion of current power. I hold that there was great wisdom in the limiting of those powers from the very beginning. That wisdom was established by previous abuses of such overreaching powers of the previous government the founding fathers were living under. They knew where all the government power abuses lead to because they had lived with those abuses until they could tolerate it no longer. This is how the U.S. Revolution began!
The people in various offices seek to repeat those same abuses by seeking to go beyond the limits that were artfully and successfully crafted by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. They may have good intentions, but the evils that can result from it outweighs the benefit of prosecuting one or two more child rapists. And yes, I said it. Protecting the constitution is FAR more important than protecting children from rapists.
Sigh! Obama is the President, not a freaking Emperor. The President's power is limited - as it should be. Somehow U.S. citizens don't understand how their government works. Laws and money are handled by Congress. The President can propose things (including budgets) but Congress is free to ignore him.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
In youth a man will lean to the left unless he has no heart. With age (and experience) a man will move right unless he has no intelligence.
I voted for McCain/Palin too. I knew Mr. Obama would lead the country into socialism.
How's that Hopey Changey thing going for ya?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.
It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General. She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court. Isn't she just doing her job?
I don't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights. The connection just isn't there for me.
I suppose, just for completeness, somebody ought to point out that the headline says "Obama" wants the ruling overturned, whereas the actual text states, correctly, that it is Elena Kagan, the solicitor general, who wants the ruling overturned. While it is true that Kagan was appointed by Obama, nevertheless I expect that Obama himself probably has never actually given an opinion on the subject.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)
If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.
At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.
Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.
African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.
Which spent the last eight years insisting they weren't POWs. If they're not POWs, then why would they be tried in a military tribunal?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That depends on what you call "meaningful". Barack Obama has done precisely squat to reverse Bush's mistakes. He put a different script on the teleprompter, but he still claims that he can violate the right of habeus corpus, commit acts of war against a US ally, send troops into harm's way without a declaration of war, imprison innocent people on the pretext of the unconstitutional "war on drugs"... You get the idea.
I'll never be disappointed by him, though. It was clear to me long before he was elected that he's basically Mitt Romney with a better speechwriter.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Which is pretty much the opposite of what the founders of the country had in mind. They wanted the people to have the x-ray glasses. You know Jefferson's saying about who fears whom and how the difference is that between liberty and tyranny...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Umm, we pretty much are at 20% unemployment:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009
17.5%. And getting closer every day. The stimulus spending is stealing future wealth to produce fake wealth today. It's stealing real savings today (which creates real wealth and investment) to produce fake wealth tomorrow.
Does it really matter WHO a slave's master is?
There are obvious ways in which Bush and Obama differ. But I think the difference is only substantial if you think the reason you're being stripped of your rights is more important than the fact that you are being stripped of your rights.
In the ways that matter, Obama is no change for the better.
I'm not so optimistic. I lost faith in people and especially their interest in politics long ago. An increasing number of people see voting as their "duty", much like some sort of other chore that must be done, so they simply let others decide for them. Or they simply vote the same way they always voted because it was good then and has to be good now.
Most can't even imagine a third party, let alone vote for it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They also warned us against foreign entanglements but we stopped listening to that particular piece of advice a long time ago. Now we have a standing army and military-industrial complex that sucks up a large portion of our GDP while giving a large percentage of the world ample reason to hate us.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Is anything the founding fathers said sacred anymore?
Should it be? Why not debate issues themselves instead of wasting time reinterpreting what some guys though about the issue a couple of hundred years ago in situations that were very different to those we live in today?
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
It would have been interesting to post that exact same comment here two years ago, substituting only the word "Obama" for the word "Bush".
The difference is how checks and balances work. It should be easy for the president to make something not happen. Clinton did that with the budget. He made the government shut down because Congress wouldn't give him a budget he liked. He made the government not happen. And there was nothing Congress could do, other than whine about how it was Clinton's fault they couldn't add numbers on a piece of paper. (that's an example and in no way support or condemnation of the act, but a clear example of the President making something not happen)
Go to Obama. He can write legislation and submit it. The Office of the President does that all the time. But someone in Congress has to take it and run with it, or it's toilet paper. Obama can't "do" much, but he can stop things from happening. He's stopping some things slowly. He's not stopping others now. The few things he can do, like treaties, are a legitimate point. But he can't pass health care. He can propose, he can sign, but he's out of it for everything in the middle.
Then, to Bush in the middle. He could have not invaded Iraq based on lies. He could have told the Executive to not revoke civil rights. He could have reigned in government power or stopped many things people complain about. He didn't. He helped them to happen.
The difference in that statement now and before is that Bush could have stopped things people wanted stopped, and didn't. Obama can't make some things happen he promised, and he's not getting Congress to live up to his promises. Whether he is trying or not is what should be the issue. If he's putting up a light fight for a show, the he should be condemned. If he's doing all he can and Congress is fighting him (and that would be his own party, as they have the majority), then it's a Democratic Party issue where they got a president elected and abandoned him.
Learn to love Alaska
Because good common sense about Government and it's role doesn't change with the times. You have to realize that they wrote with a sense of history that had seen a lot of nations rise and fall for many of the reasons they rail against. We seem to have forgotten those lessons of history all of a sudden.
It was much easier, relatively speaking, for the United States to conceive of avoiding foreign entanglements at the end of the 18th century than it was to become even by the time of the Civil War. By WWI, the US's economic interests were so broad that the notion of avoiding entanglements became practically meaningless (the US entered WWI because of unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans, which was a direct threat to US interests). By WWII, the notion that the US could hold itself above the ever-growing fray become utterly untenable. Does anybody for a moment believe that the US national interest would have been served by a fascist alliance of powers that covered much of the Old World? How long would the US as it stood have survived such a thing? Then came the Soviets, which were a direct threat in every possible way to the United States.
To be honest, I'm not even really all that sure that Washington's warning meant all that much in the 18th century. I understand where he was coming from, to be sure, and I think everyone sort of had this vision of the United States as a peaceful trading power, a sort of politically liberalized version of Great Britain. But it was simply an untenable notion in a world rapidly shrinking and with empires falling and being formed and the old order collapsing.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
RIghts to choose health care option under attack. RIght to keep our hard earned money under attack for increased federal debt. Private Enterprise under attack from TARP and limits on pay.
Uh. You might as well claim a "right to being rich" under attack. I mean, there's no universal accepted notion of economic rights, and the very nature of these rights is that if you gain any of these so called "rights", somebody else has to pay for it.
Take your health care example. Right to choose health care option, or right to health care? I think only in the USA would anybody think the former is a God given right, while the latter is an evil communist idea.
Note that I'm obviously not an American, and I don't have a stake how the health care in your country is implemented. But I think I speak for many people when I say I'm really perplexed on how some of you guys approach the idea of state run health care.
I always had the feeling that the argument against the health care reform is like... "the poor people should just die if they get sick" or something like that.
Don't quote me on this.
When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.
Careful with that - next you'll be asking for all those thousands of US mercernaries in Afghanistan (who outnumber actually US troops) to wear military uniforms too and prevent civilian casualties. IT would be funny if it didn't make me cry. Or maybe some of those mercernaries in Iraq too, but then, that's apparently not Obama's war, that's no one's war any more ,so let's all pretend it isn't there any more, eh?.
Blackwater USA, go go go , ra ra ra
Sorry, P, you're not at fault, but the hypocrisy of the US nitpicking who or who does not merit POW treatment falls on deaf ears after X years of Guantanamo and who knows how many other secret rendition and torture bases across the world.
http://counterpunch.org/roberts11232009.html is for you all, as you watch your precious "democracy" get its head flushed down the toilet for the final time as it gags on the shit your charming Attorneys General dumped whilst shredding your Constitution for the essentially meaningless trash that they've made it. USA - RIP. Good luck building your new republics, people, it's going to be a rough road, but I think you'll mostly all pull through.
Okay you sound like a tape recorder for Fox news. So rather than sensational headlines how about some substantial criticism? Let's look at your points
-- Gun legislation: I'm not so familiar with this. So how about telling us what legislation has been passed under Obama attacking gun rights? If there has been, can you provide an article giving us the details so we can make a rational judgment about it?
-- Right to choose your Healthcare: I actually part agree with you here. Forcing people to get healthcare is somewhat questionable.
-- "Right to keep your hard earned income": Firstly, do you have the right to keep the entirety of your income? I'm pretty sure the government is allowed to tax. That's part of living in a society. Now what I assume you're saying is that debt increases are going to raise your taxes and that you disagree with that. Now as far as increased federal debt goes, it's worth noting that by far the worst culprits when it comes to increasing it have been Bush and Reagan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png - Note the huge increase under Reagn and Bush I, the decrease under Clinton and the rapid increase under Bush II. Although if you look at it as a fraction of GDP, it's apparent that Bush II was far better than his farther and Reagan. All were far worse than Clinton. Now, there's forecast increase under Obama but then given the economic conditions under which he came to power that isn't so surprising.
-- TARP: TARP was introduced during the Bush administration. Not sure how you can put the entire blame for that on Obama. I also must disagree that allowing companies to beg for government support is the equivalent of trampling on private enterprise rights. Although the economic wisdom of such a program is questionable.
-- As for the rights of _Alleged_ Terrorists, what exactly is your problem with giving them a fair trial to determine if they're actually guilty or not? It seems utterly hypocritical to say that giving people the right to a trial is somehow a trampling of your rights.
"Hell, I'd take Bill Clinton back before I'd let him have another term."
You say that as if Clinton was terrible. Looking at his record though he oversaw a period of economic boom and debt reduction. Bush II inherited a nation with a newly regained confidence, reduced debt and no major wars. Look what he left Obama.
Like it or not there's multiple precedents for doing exactly that. Enemy combatants are only accorded POW status if they obey the laws of war.
The first link is about the execution of the conspirators in the Abraham Lincoln assassination.
The second link is about German saboteurs from WWII who were executed as spies.
1. What the fuck does that have to do with enemy combatants?
2. Those were the first two times military tribunals had ever been convened and they were controversial then.
Yes, 144 years ago, it was controversial to try non-POWs by the military.
The lengths people go to justify the Bush definition of "enemy combatants" never fails to surprise me.
When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.
This was written in 1949
Read the last paragraph.
If they aren't POWs (3rd Geneva Convention), then they are civilians (4th Convention).
International law is crystal clear that there is no intermediate status.
How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?
Guantanamo Bay — “Because with enough rules, you can circumvent all common sense!”
You made it a war, so they are prisoners of war. Period. But hey, double standards is what you are famous for, right? (E.g. beeping out “dick” on national television, but having the largest porn industry on the planet.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
How is it a lot less? We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. We're only giving real trials to a handful of the people at Guantanamo, the rest are either getting military tribunals or will rot forever with no charges being brought. We're still getting our phones and email tapped without a warrant. What bad idea of Bush's has Obama actually changed so far?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
How hard is it for you to understand that spies are fucking spies and we're not going to sit by and have them use our own laws to fuck us in the ass?
I think a strong argument can be made that by not using our own laws, legal traditions, and the like, we are doing much more self-damage than could ever have been accomplished by those external malevolent forces. I have seen no evidence that this type of behavior has increased our security in any way at all.
We seem to be fucking ourselves quite fine without any help from others.
The "laws of war".
The only reason war is acceptable is because we've put rules and laws in place that make the wholesale slaughter of "them" justifiable because it was done "humanely".
Leaders want these rules because it allows them to expend citizens at no cost to themselves.
Disregard the rules completely, and you have a war that no one wants.
Shouldn't that be the point?
The lengths people go to justify the Bush definition of "enemy combatants" never fails to surprise me.
They are enemy combatants. Even if they were POWs they would still be considered enemy combatants. We didn't give the POWs we captured in WW2 access to our civilian justice system. We held them until the end of hostilities. The reason that the people in Gitmo didn't get POW status is because they refuse to follow the accepted laws of war. This really isn't that complicated to understand.
If they aren't POWs (3rd Geneva Convention), then they are civilians (4th Convention).
International law is crystal clear that there is no intermediate status.
No, they aren't civilians. You lose your status as a civilian when you pick up a rifle and start shooting at our people. You might want to read about what happened to the German troops during the Battle of the Bulge that fought behind the line in Allied uniforms. By violating the laws of war they forfeited their right to POW status and were subject to summary execution upon capture. Perhaps we should have just done that to these Al Quada types and made the whole point of holding them moot. I would happily volunteer to put a bullet in KSM's head. I suspect many other Americans would do the same.
How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?
Who was talking about torture? I'm talking about holding them. I find torture to be abhorrent but that doesn't mean we can't hold them until the end of hostilities and try them for whatever violations of the laws of war that they may have committed.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.