Slashdot Mirror
NSA's Legal Win Introduces a Lot of Online Insecurity
Nerval's Lobster writes "The decision of a New York judge that the wholesale collection of cell-phone metadata by the National Security Agency is constitutional ties the score between pro- and anti-NSA forces at one victory apiece. The contradictory decisions use similar reasoning and criteria to come to opposite conclusions, leaving both individuals and corporations uncertain of whether their phone calls, online activity or even data stored in the cloud will ultimately be shielded by U.S. laws protecting property, privacy or search and seizure by law-enforcement agencies. On Dec. 27, Judge William H. Pauley threw out a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) that sought to stop the NSA PRISM cell-phone metadata-collection program on the grounds it violated Fourth Amendment provisions protecting individual privacy and limits on search and seizure of personal property by the federal government. Pauley threw out the lawsuit largely due to his conclusion that Fourth Amendment protections do not apply to records held by third parties. That eliminates the criteria for most legal challenges, but throws into question the privacy of any data held by phone companies, cloud providers or external hosting companies – all of which could qualify as unprotected third parties."
The insecurity is on the side of the NSA.
They wouldn't go through such hoops if we didn't have the most powerful freedom tool ever, namely the Internet.
Use it properly and they shall vanish.
If the fourth doesn't apply to records held by third parties... what if your records are in a rented storage unit or a bank safety deposit box? If your property is held by a third party (your money in the bank), do constitutional protections against the government just seizing your money also not apply?
Given the wealth of information on the NSA programs, it is possible to reverse engineer each NSA program and then apply each to the communications of the White House, President and Vice President to do the them what they intend to do do to us before they have a chance to "do us."
Thread ditto Straw Man ditto
Yadda yadda boo boo pee doo.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Obviously, if you don't want the NSA to read your data, make sure they can't read them. Make sure your data is not stored outside your control by someone who could at least in theory read it (like Lavabit). Make sure the data is not stored in the USA at all if you can avoid it.
The way to deal with exposure is not to use insecure communications for information which must be kept secure.
There will be much thrashing as users attempt to get secure outcomes because people are hard-headed.
Water is wet and the Sun rises in the East.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It is fun to watch the USA dig themselves in a deeper and deeper hole everytime...
ok. you're right.
that doesn't mean we have to pay vast sums of money to have these government goons vacuum
up the details of everyones lives and store them forever
Obviously, if you don't want the NSA to read your data, make sure they can't read them. Make sure your data is not stored outside your control by someone who could at least in theory read it (like Lavabit). Make sure the data is not stored in the USA at all if you can avoid it.
Unfortunately there are large hypocritical corporations as well as governments colluding to prevent people from being more in control of their data by hosting it on residential servers.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/google-we-can-ban-servers-on-fiber-without-violating-net-neutrality/
Due to the scale of NSA data collection, it is safe to assume that the NSA has data about every single US judge.
The data NSA has may render the judges unable to render impartial judgement.
A bi-partisan political review of all NSA data about every US judge should be conducted to verify that the judges are in the position to do their jobs.
By now the entire US legal system might be corrupted by the virtually unlimited NSA data collection.
Aren't judges supposed to be impartial adjudicators? This judges statements read like an NSA PR release touting all of the "wonders" of the NSA program without providing any evidence or noting any of the drawbacks.
On a grand scale... And we don't really seem to have a PROBLEM with that. WtF is wrong with us.
It's wrong. Period. There's no argument here about what data is wrong to collect... It's all of it. You don't spy on your countrys people.
Get them all up against the wall.
During the cold war, we heard stories about how the Communist governments monitor their citizens.
Now our government is monitoring us in ways that the East Germans would envy.
Here's something useful you can do:
-- Find out how your Congressman and Senators voted on these policies.
-- Add it to their Wikipedia page.
-- Don't vote for them if they don't support the Fourth Amendment.
I mean, the amount of data flowing out there is enormous, and I can't see them possibly being able to assimilate it all. Only a couple of days ago it was mentioned that they were drowning in data, and being explicitly legal for them to monitor stuff won't change that (if anything, it will make it worse) Any security you have will ultimately have to come from being a figurative (non-ferromagnetic) needle in a haystack.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What I want to know is, why the phone company is considered a third party at all? As I understand it a legal third party is a party uninvolved in the transaction. If I give you $10 and Bob happens to walk by, Bob is a third party. However, if I give $10 to Bob to give to you he is now an intermediary, not a third party. By the same reasoning the phone company is an intermediary in our telephone conversations.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
leaving both individuals and corporations uncertain of whether their phone calls, online activity or even data stored in the cloud will ultimately be shielded by U.S. laws protecting property, privacy or search and seizure by law-enforcement agencies.
What uncertainty? If you have data on company X's servers, and law enforcement shows up with a warrant to search company X's stuff, they are getting those servers. There's nothing uncertain about this, it's the way it has always been. I mean we even discuss it here on /. every damn time a data center gets raided anywhere in the world.
Not to mention the fact that company X has the right to do pretty much whatever they want with that data, including hand it all over to law enforcement or selling it for market research. You can disagree with it, but that's reality, only narrow classes of information are legally protected (in US... where some of your data probably is, on the "Internet has no borders", so cry me a virtual river).
I really can't wait for this NSA crap to blow over so we can talk again about things like who owns data in the cloud, what laws keep it from being analyzed or sold, what jurisdiction, etc. instead of all this faux surprise "but teh gubmint..." bull crap.
I don't get how we can talk about all the ingredients to this soup, HERE on /. even, and be _remotely_ surprised when we take the lid off. I'm OK talking about change, and stronger privacy protections, but in the old context of "because we don't have any" not this hopeless reactionary NSA hate where as long as "they" don't get your data we don't care.
Seriously, it's sort of... you know you don't have a fence on your lawn, you should know that animals shit on it regularly, but when someone tells you that guy you don't like, Jim down the street let his dog shit on it, it's time for fisticuffs.
The neighbor you abruptly stopped discussing privacy fences with last week is just scratching his head wondering if he should even tell you about all the cats or that stray dog dropping a deuce on your petunias, judging by your rage induced hyper focus, he's guessing it wouldn't matter.
The NSA's most recent legal win introduces NOTHING. It changes NOTHING.
Nothing that was or was not happening five or even 10 years ago is changed. Nothing that was happening prior to Snowden's revelations has changed in any way due to NSA's legal wins or losses. They still do what they choose to do and they still do it with impunity.
WORST OF ALL they still do it with the acceptance and support of the majority of the U.S. population. Cause terrerists.
There is already case law to that effect, take a close look at the megaupload case.
The article summary is misleading. The Supreme Court ruled, in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records you don't control. It's not Judge Pauley's conclusion, it's binding precedent that the court that rucked against the NSA handwaved away with not good explanation.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
If after all that has happened someone is still uncertain about this, then i'm quite certain that something is wrong with his/her cognitive abilities.
Pitting the two legal 'sides' against each other in a figurative battle and commenting on the results (as TFA does) is missing the point completely. We live in a time when the technical capabilities and resources for surveillance have become so much more powerful than those of privacy than, in effect, window blinds and draperies no longer exist and we are all unintentionally parading around in front of uncovered windows without any clothing. To put it another way, governments will monitor all communications for no other reason than that they can. Even if the NSA is stopped, you can be sure than every other country in the world either has its own program underway or is in the process of rapidly doing so. You should assume that someone somewhere is logging your calls, surveying your internet traffic, gathering your voicemail data, recording your online banking profile and purchases, and so forth...because they can. This situation will not change until the technology available to defend yourself from digital intrusion catches up with the technology already available to the offense...and that might be a while yet.
It's just wrong, that's all. Wrong because our emails are *clearly* the "papers" mentioned in the Constitution. If there's a law that makes 3rd party possession of same somehow the equivalent of "it suddenly not being yours" then it's THAT law that has to go. This is how it is in most of Europe BTW. YOU control your phone records, not Verizon.
I could almost live with TIA if I thought that it would only be accessed via a court order, but that's not what we have. What we have is secret FISA orders, executed in secret, using secret criteria in accord with secret interpretations of secret executive orders.
I sympathize with this judge's concerns, I do, but the real world consequences of what they're doing are more likely to be worse than the real world consequences of stopping them from doing it, even if we have another 9-11 every year.
Our democracy will not survive if the government can data mine all our "anonymous" data until programs it wrote decide that we fit a "profile" and THAT itself constitutes "reasonable suspicion". This can be used to stifle all dissent, and will be used for exactly that, starting, obviously, with people who speak out against the legitimacy of this process in the first place. A guy like Howard Zinn would just be destroyed by this.. we wouldn't have legitimate dissent in this nation.
Here's something that should help people think clearly on this topic. The NSA line operators and management REFUSED to permit the NSA to apply the same level of monitoring to THEM as they apply to us. They didn't want Congress to second guess them or know what they were doing.
(Binney) ".. also explained that NSA never developed and implemented technology in order to have the capabilities to track activities by employees on the agencyâ(TM)s systems because of two groups of people: the analysts and management.
The analysts âoerealized that what that would be doing is monitoring everything they did and assessing what they were doing. They objected. They didnâ(TM)t want to be monitored.â
Management resisted because it meant one would be âoeable to assess returns on all the programs around the world.â It would be possible to âoelay out all the programs in the world and map [them] against the spending and the return on investment.â
It meant the agency would be âoeexposed to Congress for auditing,â Binney added.â Management did not want that."
From:
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/12/27/interview-with-nsa-whistleblower-bill-binney-afraid-were-spreading-secret-government-around-world/
But this is the ONE thing that MUST be implemented. If an NSA operator cuts a fart, I want Congress to be able to know what he had for lunch. Unwatched watchers cannot be permitted to exist. Period.
At the heart of what's going on here is the people at the NSA are looking into their own hearts and deciding that they're all right and the American public has nothing to fear from them or their intentions. Bully for them, I'm sure it's true, but they won't always be there.
It's not about them or their intentions. It's about the institution, the process, *the machine* and how we're building that machine.
You can't say to yourself, as an NSA employee, by way of assuaging your own secret apprehensions, "Well, if push ever does come to shove, if it came right down to it, an unconstitutional, openly fascist-level of abuse would just never happen because WE'D never permit it". At least, you can't tell yourself that and also bash guys like Snowden and Binney because THOSE guys , whom you hate so much they make you grind your teeth , they're exactly the hypothetical WE you posit in the above safeguard. It doesn't look any different that THIS .. THIS THIS that is before your ey
"The decision of a New York judge that the wholesale collection of cell-phone metadata by the National Security Agency is constitutional ties the score between pro- and anti-NSA forces at one victory apiece.
I call BS. Nowhere in the article did the judge even mention the Constitution. From the information provided in the article, the judge is obviously either paid off or incompetent. He states that
In the 54-page opinion issued in New York, Pauley said the sweeping program "represents the government's counter-punch" to eliminate al-Qaeda's terror network by connecting fragmented and fleeting communications.
which has nothing to do with legally acquiring evidence or the Constitution, and
"There is no evidence that the Government has used any of the bulk telephony metadata it collected for any purpose other than investigating and disrupting terrorist attacks," he wrote.
which once again was irrelevant to the question before the court. Just because the government has NOT YET been caught using the data illegally has nothing to do with it being illegally acquired.
The judge also quotes extensive justifications from the Patriot Act, which last I checked, is NOT part of the Constitution.
President George Walker Bush granted the Telecoms with impunity from USA laws in the beginning of this mess.
Now a District Court Judge finds Bush's NSA, which Obama inherited, is all legal.
If this Judge is correct, then was the Bush White House correct to grant all Telecoms impunity? If no then can Bush be tried for treason?
Can the NSA's "methods and techniques" be reversed engineered? Yes. And in doing so applied to the communications of President Obama? Yes. Would that be legal? Given the Judge's opinion, if not overturned on appeal, the answer is Yes!
Has Google reversed engineered the NSA "methods and techniques"? Let's hope so.
Remember: No expectation of privacy -- which means that secrecy is a complete no-go..
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
How long before lack of adequate federal revenue justifies the seizure, archiving and datamining of all business records and transaction?
Not that I'm against such daylight... I believe that we'd be better off if ALL such dealings were a matter of open public record. Then no one would be able to use their wealth or privilege to avoid responsible and necessary contribution to the common wealth or engage in politics by surreptitious means and methods without the possibility that their interest, activity and opportunity for personal gain could be hidden. 501c4 nonprofits currently disguise far too much activity on the part of those who seek to slip the brass ring through your nose using public airwaves, astroturf-like 'grassroots' organizations, politically oriented foundations and group-think tanks. Mushrooms may be happy with their diet in the dark, but no reasonably intelligent American should be.
What would happen if we all could know what every person and artificial person was doing with their wealth; what they supported, who they did business with and why so much of their wealth went into the black market or was spent promoting unenlightened self-interest.
the founder recognized the rights and DUTY of the people to put off Tyranny.
Its not law, its more powerful than law, its the foundation and spirit of all legitimate law.
With this that judge is up for being fired.... someone just need to do so...... Tell him he is fired.
The status of the law isn't all that different than it was 30 days ago. The only "win," defined as a finding that the NSA's activities may not be legal, is a preliminary injunction for two people, and the case has yet to be decided. That isn't a win yet. It is also unlikely that complainants in the suit winning the injunction will ultimately prevail upon appeal. You can read some informed legal commentary from an actual law professor here:
Another Problem With Judge Leon’s NSA Opinion: Absolute vs. Relative Measurements and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness
Can the DC Circuit Use the Mosaic Theory to Invalidate the NSA Telephony Metadata Program?
This same law professor comments on the last case here:
Judge Pauley of the SDNY Upholds NSA Section 215 Program
The bottom line is nothing is really different.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
So if I don't own my house outright, they can come in without a warrant now? Since my information is held by a third party (the bank)...
i suppose being the girl/boyfriend of a terrorist does make you a valid target.
Being the girl/boyfriend of a NSA Employee does not make you a valid target.
They NSA may have won a battle, but it would be smart to wait and see who will win the war of the public opinion. If they lose the war of public opinion (and most of the public opinion is clearly pro 4th amendment), then there could be new rulings issued or new laws enacted that would criminalize what NSA was doing for a long time.
Please keep in mind that the discussion is steered only to the phone records, however the suspects (citizens) leave much thicker digital trail: emails, internet searches, movements of person, movements of the properties (cars), all the banking transactions, healthcare records, your behavior at home and many more.
Allow me to give theoretical example: if I, for example, have a teenager son, and I decide to run to the political position I will become 100% vulnerable because my home internet log profile shows communication with the teenage girls. It does not matter that the teenager son was communicating with his friends, the fact of communication itself happened can and will be used to blackmail and to damage credibility. This everyday example alone is adequate to bring a point to those who say "If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear". I think those words are attributable to Goebbels
whoosh
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
NY judge used interesting argument on top of others: private people gave their privacy away to private companies like FB and google in effect letting privacy being abuse already and as nobody complained this is then OK and NSA can proceed. I think such argument means Zuckerberg should be sent to Guantanamo but the judge sees it differently.
Other than that I do not need much more arguments to see that beacon of liberty and cradle of human rights and democracy are just as fake as anything else coming from Hollywood.
The problem I think is that the courts are still trying to work by analogy (as we in the law are taught to do) to very old case law which looked at the depth of an intrusion and the expectation of privacy one had—whether it's looking into your bedroom window or reading the outside of a letter. What wasn't foreseen was the gov't being able to intercept *every* bit of previously innocuous, public data—for example, every phone call, every internet request, even every block you drive or walk through the streets (by tracking your phone, facial recognition, etc.). I'm not sure the 4th A., which clearly wasn't designed for this sort of situation but *does* embody a notion of a right of privacy, can be stretched intelligently by analogy to the effortless trapping and searching of everything we do. The paradigm may have to change, to refocus on the amendment's notion of privacy rather than analogies to peering through 18th century windows. (The Supreme Court did say things had gone too far with infrared surveillance, even though the infrared radiation itself is basically public.)
It's hard to say exactly what is wrong with government surveillance nowadays, but "it's creepy" is a good place to start.
Moreover, this is an area for legislation. The bill of rights and somewhat unpredictable courts don't have to do all the work. Look how long it took to invalidate the laws on sodomy (by which I mean oral and anal, hetero or homosexual), when the legislature could have done it in a jiffy.
They District Court "Judge" may not realize the 'broader impacts' of his 'Legal' ruling on part of the NSA operations network against USA citizens.
That is Perfect!
By issuing a judgement that acquiring phone meta-data from "any" third-party is legal, means that "anyone" has protection under the USA laws to do the same!
Reversing engineering NSA's methods and techniques is a short matter of time.
Before long, apps or javascripts or c/c++ code-bases will be available to anyone and freely useable.
Question now is: who will be the first target of the new legal phone meta-data mining?
With the mid-term elections coming in November and the next Presidential election in 2016, the obvious "candidate(s)" is obvious.
Welcome to the New USA Barak; feeling ... 'meta?'
The Cloud is Dead!
All cloud based services will cease to exist within a few years once people realize that shit is insecure as plastic wrapping over a broken window. The same goes for Europe, they'll be pulling out of all U.S. businesses offering cloud services so fast they won't know what hit them.
...he said it was legal. Big difference (unfortunately).
The 4th amendment uses the term reasonable; but the "reasonable person" idea is a sophist distortion of intent. The 4th amendment defines what is reasonable here: Probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, an explicit description of the thing(s) to be searched for and the place(s) to be searched, enabled by a warrant issued by a judge on those specific predicates.
Just ask yourself: If that's not the definition of "reasonable" WRT search and seizure, then why does the 4th bother to lay all that out? Where in the 4th does one manage to gain an appreciation that one can ignore all those things on the idea that someone just thinks it'd be a good idea today? If one can ignore them just because it's... reasonable... then WTF was the point of putting them there at all?
I submit to you that reasonable in this case is wholly defined, and has nothing whatsoever to do with what a "person might think." Reasonable is laid out for us.
Now you (or some judge, or some government official) may argue that there are cases where we need to be able to search right bloody now, etc., and you know what? I might, as a "reasonable person", agree with you, but: if we want to change the limitations explicitly placed upon the federal (and via the 14th amendment, the states), the only legitimate path to do so is via amendment.
Not by some sniveling judge, or worse, some government drone muttering "for the children" or "terrorists!"
--fyngyrz
(Anon due to mod points.)
If you were equally concerned with Apple, Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, ATT, Verizon, etc. employees going through your junk that's one thing, but irrational focus on NSA is silly.
Pitting the two legal 'sides' against each other in a figurative battle and commenting on the results (as TFA does) is missing the point completely.
Boy howdy. This judge ruled it's legal under sec 215 of the patriot act. The other judge ruled section 215 is unconstitutional. Both judges can be right.
Imagine if the legislature passed a constitutional amendment instead of a law in 2001. They had the votes to do it. BTW, I agree with your conclusion. If the NSA isn't submitting broken encryption standards and bad commits, then someone else will. Even if they stop, this is the wake up call.
If you aren't working on NSA proof apps/protocols now, you're wasting your time. Nobody will comply with hijackers after 9/11. Nobody will blindly trust your code after Snowden's leaks.
Exactly what I have thought myself thanks.
CrazyOldMan
..about our NSA collecting everyone's cell phone meatdata? Meatdata! What on earth goes on there in that agency? "JEESE" They are supposed to be a trustworthy, responsible bunch, safeguarding America's security, making sure we remain the Land of the Free, I thought..
Personally, I don't broadcast my meat internationally, and anyone putting their meat online for all the world to see and [Gosh knows what else] should expect that someone is going to collect.. What? What's that? That's metadata? Cell phone metadata? Oh.. OH!
[nevermind..] "
The amount of information one could gather about a person simply from their cellphone is outright scary. Shine a light to your eyes until you see that green spot, and start reading something. Notice how that spot lands on exactly the word you are reading. Using the front facing camera and a constant screenshot stream from your phone and I could even tell how you feel about certain words to some extent.
It's possible that someone you haven't met could know everything about you, and you'd never know that they do.
In a day and age when just about every app gets permission to your camera and GPS location, and most people just press "Install" as a habit, I'm truly glad we're having this conversation.
The law is an interpretation.
... what this means?
That interpretation is given by people according with their own realities, and in this case, according with the specific US laws and regulations.
Then, THE CLOUD is over as a concept, and it only needs to be considered within each country limit, because the "not owned" data belongs to the country where the servers are located and not to the individuals whose data is used to derive that "not owned" information. As many services, including the "big ones" are located in the US territory, the rest of the world is basically a set of second class individuals.
I am part of this second class, so what I can do is to try not to share anything I consider private on the Internet
A complete fragmentation of the Internet. No more private data traveling it.
Each country needs to derive its own local services that will be ruled by their own regulations. The United States is forcing the World to follow what North Korea and Iran are doing, to build big intranets instead of being integrated as part of the connected Internet, this would make this surveillance system completely useless.
This is far of being a solution, and from my perspective, it is the most stupid and naive way of working. This is like a naughty child trying to find a justification to continue being naughty instead of learning to grow up and behave with more common sense and reasonings. What is being justified is brute force behaviour instead of intelligent one.
Privacy is a 5th Amendment issue. If online activity is considered speech, then we need to recognize that the 1st and 5th Amendments aren't mutually exclusive to each other, and aggrivated data collection against an individual's wishes is a violation of their 5th Amendment rights.
is a shit-eating, dog fucking son of a whore that represents all the is corrupt in Amerika. May he soon die a horrible painful death.
The Girlfriends and Ex's of NSA employees who were being spied on.
There, I've said it....now go screw yourself.
Right, like Tsanarev whom the U.S. government's security agencies were repeatedly warned about but didn't even bother to monitor. Cause they're way to busy spying on all the rank and file Americans.
We have one other document that is actually higher than the Constitution. No, it is not a legal document, for it transcends the laws and even exceeds the SCOTUS
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
THIS GOVERNMENT IS GETTING DAMN CLOSE TO THAT LINE
You forgot to mention where it states that he will also have the authority to listen to every phone call, intercept emails, papers and parcels. All without warrant?
You also forgot to mention the oath of every serviceman to DEFEND the Constitution against POWERS both FOREIGN and DOMESTIC
Yes, I'm shouting. We need a little shouting. Cause this crap is inexcusable.
Then you sir, need to tie a cinder block around your neck and go swimming in a pool. I doubt you'll foresee what affects that might have either.
But suffice to say, the U.S. government security agencies were repeatedly warned. And I will wager you a $100 that had they monitored their phones and communications that they would have easily foiled the Boston Bombing.
NSA isn't concerned about any threats. Neither is .gov. If they were, they'd have equipped the U.S. Coast Guard with anti-submarine capable cutters and drones for monitoring our coastline. # threat to America is a 25 ft sailboat with a nuke or dirty bomb sailing from West Africa or Indonesia into a U.S. port.
No, they don't care about foriegn threats. All of this is about monitoring U.S. citizens. Because they're far more afraid of US than THEM.
We're not at war. Congress hasn't declared a war in my lifetime. You want to call that bullshit, than call it right.
Furthermore, we're not pointing to one failure. But the fact that NSA, TSA, etc, have failed to stop anything. The only cases they have stopped were ones instigated and pushed by the FBI themselves.
What essential liberties? The right not to have my daughter groped by a TSA thug. The right to not have my papers (be they paper or electronic) searched, seized, detained without a warrant.
Hell, how about the right not to have to buy a product??????????
Can we PLEASE block the IP addresses of the NSA so they can't keep posting anonymously.Thx ;-)
The Constitution already forbids it...
DOESN'T APPLY TO RENTERS. ONLY HOMEOWNERS BENEFIT
(Note, .gov is currently talking with justices to see if the fact that you pay property taxes in fact means you do not truly own your home, so that we can interpret the 4th Amendment as not applying to homeowners either.)
Why hasn't the NSA droned you yet? Haven't they realized you do them more damage as a failed sock puppet than their harshest critics could ever do?
Happy New Year.
Are you saying a bullet wouldn't work?
Someone might have to test that soon.
Enjoy yourself.