Slashdot Mirror
MN Legislature Introduces Amendment To Protect Electronic Communications
Bob the Super Hamste writes: The Minnesota legislature has introduced an amendment to the State Constitution to enshrine the protections against unreasonable search and seizure to electronic communications and data. The amendment appears to have broad support in the State House, but leadership in the State Senate is lukewarm to it. In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Ron Latz (DFL) had blocked the amendment, stating that he feels it is redundant. Additionally, Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk (DFL) opposes the legislation because it is an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution. If it passed, Minnesota would become only the second state to enact such a change (Missouri did so last year with support from 75% of voters).
Facebook!!
I took the minute out of my day to email both of these guys who are holding this up in my state. Please consider doing the same. There is a very simple quick email form at both links.
No law on the state level is going to trump the blank check that the federal government has given to the NSA and their lackeys. They can do all the hand-waving they want at the state level about wanting to "protect electronic communications," the NSA has already been demonstrated to be actively:
- hacking foreign and domestic targets without any discretion or oversight
- collecting all electronic communications for either immediate access or retrieval, again both foreign and domestic
- intercepting deliveries of computer hardware and sabotaging them with backdoors and compromised firmware updates
- compromising updates at the ISP level if they can't get at the hardware itself, often using perfectly legitimate signatures and certificates...wonder how they're getting their hands on those...
- abusing their power to the extent that you have documents coming out detailing "programs" like LOVEINT, essentially NSA employees using their espionage program to stalk former lovers and destroy their careers or reputations.
The list could go on and on...and on. Hell, we don't even know the extent of what Snowden has yet, not all of it has been released. There may be worse STILL coming down the pike. Meanwhile you have members of the intelligence community out in droves on social media sites (and yes, even in the comments on sites like Slashdot) referring to Snowden as a "traitor" who should be executed. Not hard to spot a spook, they made a game out of it at DEFCON and you can play the exact same game here. Look for the guy who's loudly suggesting that Snowden is a traitor who should be extradited for betraying the country by...how, exactly? By revealing that Americans are less free than they believed themselves to be? By showing the entire world that there is no greater liar than a U.S. president? These are people that don't believe in the core values their own country was founded on and yet they accuse Snowden of being a traitor.
The real traitors are the politicians. The question is, how long are you going to allow them to run your lives? How long are you going to allow them to destroy everything that your ancestors helped to build? How long are you going to disgrace your own bloodline by refusing to stand up to these neo-Nazi's?
Pass it, but make sure to mention that it is to clarify already-existing laws, and not an addition.
How does Dayton feel about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUhOnX8qt3I
He feels it is redundant.
Supposedly the Bill of Rights was controversial in its day because many of the founding fathers thought it would be unnecessary: the population would zealously guard their hard-earned liberty and the various protections of the Constitution (representational government, separation of powers, etc.) would prevent tyranny. In fact, they feared that by enumerating freedoms they would inadvertently limit them, which is why they ultimately included the 9th amendment to say "hey, this isn't an exhaustive list" [though the practical effect of the 9th has been null].
Fortunately, the Bill of Rights was passed despite being "redundant", and the courts have brought it into play several times when lawmakers worked up particularly nasty bills. Unfortunately, the courts have also weasel-worded their way into listing several exceptions to these amendments (especially where 1, 2, and 4 are concerned).
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Doesn't matter, Dayton gets no real say in this. He can speak his opinion, but it's that of a fellow Minnesotan and not as someone with the power to enact this as law.
I'd sooner call the cops on rabble-rousers like yourself than to racially profile someone. Too bad (at least in the US) the first amendment protects your right to say this just as much as it protects someone's right to walk around.
The word is "Feds"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'd sooner call the cops on rabble-rousers like yourself than to racially profile someone. Too bad (at least in the US) the first amendment protects your right to say this just as much as it protects someone's right to walk around.
So you would rather have a state with "thought crimes" than tolerate speech you really find distasteful. And when you recognize that there are still obstacles in the way of such an extreme police state, you decide to feel somehow honored, because you recognize that there still are such obstacles - despite the constant efforts to chip away at them. At least you're unusually up-front about what kind of state you desire and how much you believe your own personal (though quite rational) tastes should direct this sort of grand executive power. But your vision will result in something like the Inquisition -- you do know that, right? Truth is, the speech that most pisses us off for the most well-founded of reasons is the very speech we must always protect. The alternative is just that much worse than mere distaste.
I see the US Constitution bashed constantly in media, and occasionally here. You seem to hint at the same idea in your last sentence as well, but maybe I'm taking that wrong. The US was the best design in the history of Governments. Many compromises took place to enact it, but the idea was that it would be difficult to change (not impossible). We now have Politicians and Supreme court justices that believe the Constitution is a nuisance, and that is telling. Primarily that the US Constitution is still a thorn in their sides.
If we taught kids the history of the Constitution and all that surrounded it, we would be much better off.
I can dream can't I?
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
In the Senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Ron Latz (DFL) had blocked the amendment, stating that he feels it is redundant.
Saying it's redundant implies there are already laws on the books that protect against unreasonable search and seizure of electronic communications -- yet those actions are being taken.
So which is it, Ron? Either this is not redundant, and therefore a good idea in the scheme of checks and balances, or LEOs are getting unlawful access to electronic communications. Either way, there's a problem here that needs to be addressed.
why did this even get put on the /. main page
the summary itself provides damning evidence that this bill is a pointless act.
this might get more press than the Montana hating state rep who wants to ban yoga pants, but not likely
You are hopelessly naive if you think the NSA/DOJ/FBI/DEA and other criminal enterprises are going to stop snooping just because some state passes a law.