"You asserted there was some nefarious act, but wouldn't state what you thought it was. You implied Treason, but stated that she was rude in a hearing."
You are just proving my point, for which I thank you. This has not even a vague resemblance to what I actually wrote.
I wrote that Clinton violated the law (or at least the spirit of the law) by evading a legitimate question asked in a Congressional hearing, in a rather dramatic (and blatant) fashion. That *IS* a "nefarious act", but it is not, in itself, a high crime. I did not mention or imply treason at all. I have no idea where you got that from. It is wholly a product of your own mind.
My point was, and is, that we have a right to expect honesty from a potential Presidential candidate. There is strong evidence that we were not told the truth about Benghazi. We have strong reason for wanting to what know the truth is. And she deliberately evaded attempts to find out what it is. (And pretended that it doesn't even matter.) That is unethical conduct.
" I've just been trying to fight through your weasel words to figure out what your opinion was, then find facts to evaluate it. It was an extraordinary claim (the Secretary of State was involved in Treason),"
What a bizarre thing to say. I told you my opinion, and I cited facts to back them up. I "weaseled" nothing. You seem to be intent on reading meanings into my words that do not exist, then complain that those meanings are not clear. AT NO TIME did I say or even imply treason. I simply asked some questions, and berated Clinton for obscuring the truth. From that, you seem to have invented all kinds of nonexistent things you think I'm "trying" to say.
And again I have to say: congratulations. You win the prize for "maximally not understanding, or deliberately distorting, the plain words of others".
It only SEEMS so, to those who didn't understand the point I was making. I understand the law just fine, thanks.
Even if I did not make myself clear, maybe you could take some effort to understand the point that was being made before you knee-jerk insult other people? Because that reflects on you far more than it does on me.
Exactly. The outside of the server itself can conceptually serve as the "envelope" beyond which the government may not go without a warrant.
We need to remember that the concept of "intrusion" has nothing to do with the difficulty of gathering certain information. After all, opening an envelope is not difficult. It has to do with reasonable expectation of privacy, and an agreement with a carrier of email can reasonably be said to be such an expectation. It is the conceptual envelope the government must not go beyond, not some physical barrier.
That's why SCOTUS' recent ruling on DNA collection is so bizarre. If anybody should know that the "intrusion" of the swab is not the important factor, but the intrusion into information contained in it is, it should have been SCOTUS. They reversed hundreds of years of precedent with that badly flawed decision.
Remember that laws can be and have been overturned. The fact that a law exists does not automatically prove that the lawmakers had the legal authority to make it. Look at the Real ID Act, for example. 26 States have passed resolutions saying they will not comply, because it oversteps constitutional federal authority.
This is called "state nullification", which is another way laws eventually get overturned. And despite lots of rhetoric to the contrary, usually from liberal-leaning media, it has a long and successful history.
Marijuana laws are another excellent example of state nullification. But the same liberal media sources would have you believe that is "nullification" (although it is), because that is one of THEIR pet causes, and "nullification" violates their statist principles. That is why they try to portray nullification as "racist" for example, which is hilariously wrong if you know anything about its real history.
All of which translates to: "It's illegal or immoral if somebody else does it, but it's okay if we do."
But back to the main point: the government justifies CALEA because the telcos are federally regulated "common carriers" under Title II. ISPs, websites, and their owners are not. Congress passed a law specifically giving Internet businesses immunity from Title II regulation. (Which was probably a bad idea.) Which means they do not have similar authority over those businesses.
Title II coverage is a trade-off. On the one hand, Title II operations are federally regulated. CALEA-type laws might apply. On the other hand, communications via Title II operations are legally protected. Meta-data cannot be collected without a court order, and the contents of such communications cannot be intercepted (even by the carrier) without a probable-cause warrant.
If we discount illegal NSA surveillance, the Internet would actually be far better off under Title II and a CALEA-type law.
"I don't have an answer, but "nuh uh I used encryption" sure as hell ain't it."
Actually, yes it is.
You have a RIGHT to privacy, and to private and anonymous speech. (The Supreme Court ruled years ago that we do have this Constitutional right, because without it none of the other rights can exist. The logic is sound.)
Yes, society does have an interest in seeing that criminals are caught and prosecuted. BUT... the real, important question is: given that these two things are in conflict, which one shall trump the other?
Given that without privacy rights (as ruled by the Supreme Court itself), a democratic form of government cannot exist at all, it is the right to privacy that MUST overrule society's interest in prosecuting criminals. After all: we have the ability, and responsibility, to protect ourselves from criminals. But it can be far more difficult to protect ourselves from government.
"There really isn't a lower standard that says you don't need a warrant to force disclosure... Voluntarily giving information doesn't require a warrant, no matter who does the giving. "
You make a good point. But it still seems to me to be an end-run around the warrant requirement, voluntary or not. What right does someone else have to disclose a private deal you made?
The argument tends to go: once you have made a deal with someone else, you have waived any "reasonable expectation of privacy". BUT, I disagree with that basic concept. If you have agreed to keep it private, you have waived nothing. In my opinion, therefore, "voluntarily" giving it to the authorities violates my privacy rights in exactly the same way a warrantless search would.
This DOES presume, however, that it was something you had agreed to keep private.
"And sometimes even the Constitution is unclear, such as the debate about the debt ceiling and whether the 14th amendment applies to it."
There's nothing unclear about it. The purported connection between the 14th amendment and the current debt ceiling is nothing short of hilarious. The 14th amendment says existing debt "shall not be questioned". It says nothing about authorizing further debt.
Obama is trying to argue that if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we MUST default on our debt. This is a ludicrous argument. All the government has to do is CUT SPENDING, and it can still pay its debt. So default is NOT inevitable, and the argument fails.
And beside that: even if we did default on debt, despite government rhetoric to the contrary, it wouldn't be the first time. Nixon did it in 1971, for just one example.
"Have each client generate a public/private key pair, store the private locally, the public on the server, and encrypt each message using the recipient's public key. Stored snaps on the server could only be decrypted with the private key, which the server doesn't have."
I think this sidesteps a troubling point brought up in Snapchat's statement. Since when is anybody obligated to "preserve" anything while government decides to issue a warrant? I don't think any such authority exists.
Either there is a warrant, or there is not. If there is no warrant, I'll do whatever the hell I please with the stuff I have. I am not aware of any authority on the part of the courts to force me to change my daily actions "in anticipation" of a warrant.
he must be another one that thinks the internet is a series of tubes and "uses the googles"
Besides, a "polite request" from government is seldom really polite, and seldom really a request.
Government needs to understand that people often see "government requests" as genuine threats: "Do as we ask, or else." The threat may just be perceived, or it may be real. Sometimes it's hard to tell.
But we must always keep in mind that government authority = force.
"It still is acting in bad faith. Even though nobody comes out to actively defend a work, it still isn't ethical to recopy and relicense someone else's stuff without permission."
Yes, it very much IS ethical to do so. It just isn't legal. There is a difference.
Until just a very few years ago (around the time of CMCA), in order to enforce a copyright you had to DECLARE it. That means publicly declare who the copyright belongs to, and when the work was produced.
For a number of extremely good reasons, this is still the way it should work. That system worked, and worked fine. There were a number of solid ethical and equity reasons for it being the way it was. It worked MUCH better than the current mess we are in now. Which began at precisely the time they changed the law.
Always keep in mind that laws do not determine ethics. Ethics are supposed to influence the laws. The former doesn't work in the long run. The latter does.
"Why is everyone talking like there even is a problem? In August Android had almost 80% of the market. Yeah, it must be incredibly boring and horrible to use if so many people want it."
Exactly. Further, Feldman is saying that "choice causes problems", when that is so broad a generalization as to be generally incorrect.
TOO MUCH choice CAN cause problems in some markets. But is this one of them? As you say, it has 80% of the market so I think it's accurate to say NO.
Choice is only a problem in specific scenarios. If you want proof that choice is not a problem in general, all you need to do is visit the candy section of your local supermarket.
I don't see it since the primary aspect of the Fifth Amendment is constraints on forcing self-incrimination. Evidence provided by other parties just doesn't qualify, even if it originally came from you, unless it requires you to register evidence of a crime (say a federal law requiring Facebook users to register with Facebook any illegal drug trades they conduct via Facebook). Maybe you're speaking of the Fourth Amendment which is about constraints on searches and seizures?
But I think you're both missing the point I was making. If I have a private business deal with someone else, and it requires a probable-cause warrant to get information about it from ME, why should it take any lower standard of evidence to get it from someone else? Where is the justification for that?
Completely aside from the 5th Amendment, it appears to me to be a rather blatant attempt to get around the "probable cause" requirement.
"Um, a warrant is a court order. The investigators explain to the judges what they suspect, why they suspect it and what and where they need to look to get more evidence. The judge then issues the warrant. "
You are nitpicking, and not even doing it well.
While a warrant is technically a kind of court order, there are other kinds as well. What is commonly referred to as a "court order", a "search warrant", and a "subpoena". They are ALL court orders, but they differ in the standards of evidence that is required for each.
What is commonly called a "court order" has a very low evidence threshold, or even none at all. You are "ordered" by the court to appear on a certain date. You are "ordered" by the court to pay reparations to someone you defrauded. Etc.
A subpoena also has fairly low standard of evidence. You can be subpoenaed by courts for a number of reasons, and there are a great many situations in which a subpoena has no force or can be quashed.
In order to issue a warrant, on the other hand, the court must be shown probable cause. This is a higher standard than either of the other examples above.
However, a defendant's 5th Amendment rights override both warrants and subpoenas. No court in the nation has the authority to violate the 5th Amendment, for any reason.
"Ahh, that conservative selective memory, you corrected with 'modern' in bold, you most certainly did not write 'modern', originally, interesting how you comment proves my rebuttal. To keep in with the spirit of your comment, liar, liar, pants on fire."
Stop being such a large-bore asshole. What I meant in my original comment was quite clear, and now you're just trolling.
"She was somehow involved in a nefarious act. You mentioned her "refusal" to be polite to an abusive Senator as proof she was hiding something.
Jesus Christ. I have seldom seen the like. You must be the King of weasel-wording. Seriously, all you have done this entire time is distort situations and other peoples' words.
I can only conclude you must be trolling again. But I have to say: kudos on your demonstration of your awesome "impenetrable wall of obtuseness". If I were a corrupt government official I would not hesitate for a second to hire you.
JQP: try not to let him get to you too much; while he likely does reside in the US where he could face lawsuits/fines/jailtime/ostracization/severely limited job pool for the stuff he's written (if it is indeed the same guy), he could be from anywhere American English is spoken, and not all countries have such strict stalking laws (although some have harsher ones).
The point is that I am pretty sure that I know who it is, and IF I am correct, he both lives in the United States, and has crossed the legal line more than once. He has harassed me on a number of occasions, and publicly made some rather ridiculous (but nevertheless offensive) accusations.
"US GDP is overinflated by the huge financial "industry"."
Though I linked to Wikipedia for convenience, the figures I used came from the UN, not the US government.
"Statistics of all three sources say that Luxembourg, which is another "Western nation" by the way, is 30% more productive than USA."
And has a population of not much more than the town I live in. So what? I wrote "on average", which means the mean GDP per capita in "western" nations, which is VERY FAR from that of Luxembourg. If you want to know specifically what "western" means, I am willing to go by either the "Human Development quartile" or "Huntington's Map", also from Wikipedia, because I don't feel like looking up the damned UN data again.
But just to be clear: I wrote "average". I didn't say it was the highest in the world, I wrote that it as higher than THE AVERAGE of Western nations.
Besides: the court has another, arguably "more American" avenue: it can order the defendant to turn over the information. (If, that is, it doesn't violate his 5th Amendment rights.)
I never did buy this concept that just because you have a business deal with someone, the court could order THEM to turn over personal papers related to you. Seems to me, the same standard of getting a warrant should apply. Otherwise, the whole purpose of warrants is being subverted.
Let the courts criticize. There's not a damned thing they can do. They have no legal authority to order people to make their websites police-friendly.
"I hate to break it to you, but half the male muslims in the world meet the same profile. And the vast majority of them don't try and crash airplanes into buildings."
No, they don't. Half the male muslims in the world did not have known suspicious connections, engage in known suspicious activities, etc. These guys WERE flagged by other agencies, but the word apparently didn't get around.
Slashdot Mirror
"You asserted there was some nefarious act, but wouldn't state what you thought it was. You implied Treason, but stated that she was rude in a hearing."
You are just proving my point, for which I thank you. This has not even a vague resemblance to what I actually wrote.
I wrote that Clinton violated the law (or at least the spirit of the law) by evading a legitimate question asked in a Congressional hearing, in a rather dramatic (and blatant) fashion. That *IS* a "nefarious act", but it is not, in itself, a high crime. I did not mention or imply treason at all. I have no idea where you got that from. It is wholly a product of your own mind.
My point was, and is, that we have a right to expect honesty from a potential Presidential candidate. There is strong evidence that we were not told the truth about Benghazi. We have strong reason for wanting to what know the truth is. And she deliberately evaded attempts to find out what it is. (And pretended that it doesn't even matter.) That is unethical conduct.
" I've just been trying to fight through your weasel words to figure out what your opinion was, then find facts to evaluate it. It was an extraordinary claim (the Secretary of State was involved in Treason),"
What a bizarre thing to say. I told you my opinion, and I cited facts to back them up. I "weaseled" nothing. You seem to be intent on reading meanings into my words that do not exist, then complain that those meanings are not clear. AT NO TIME did I say or even imply treason. I simply asked some questions, and berated Clinton for obscuring the truth. From that, you seem to have invented all kinds of nonexistent things you think I'm "trying" to say.
And again I have to say: congratulations. You win the prize for "maximally not understanding, or deliberately distorting, the plain words of others".
"You seem to be pretty ignorant of the law."
It only SEEMS so, to those who didn't understand the point I was making. I understand the law just fine, thanks.
Even if I did not make myself clear, maybe you could take some effort to understand the point that was being made before you knee-jerk insult other people? Because that reflects on you far more than it does on me.
Exactly. The outside of the server itself can conceptually serve as the "envelope" beyond which the government may not go without a warrant.
We need to remember that the concept of "intrusion" has nothing to do with the difficulty of gathering certain information. After all, opening an envelope is not difficult. It has to do with reasonable expectation of privacy, and an agreement with a carrier of email can reasonably be said to be such an expectation. It is the conceptual envelope the government must not go beyond, not some physical barrier.
That's why SCOTUS' recent ruling on DNA collection is so bizarre. If anybody should know that the "intrusion" of the swab is not the important factor, but the intrusion into information contained in it is, it should have been SCOTUS. They reversed hundreds of years of precedent with that badly flawed decision.
s/ would have you believe that is nullification / would have you believe that is NOT nullification
"You sure about that? ... CALEA ..."
Remember that laws can be and have been overturned. The fact that a law exists does not automatically prove that the lawmakers had the legal authority to make it. Look at the Real ID Act, for example. 26 States have passed resolutions saying they will not comply, because it oversteps constitutional federal authority.
This is called "state nullification", which is another way laws eventually get overturned. And despite lots of rhetoric to the contrary, usually from liberal-leaning media, it has a long and successful history.
Marijuana laws are another excellent example of state nullification. But the same liberal media sources would have you believe that is "nullification" (although it is), because that is one of THEIR pet causes, and "nullification" violates their statist principles. That is why they try to portray nullification as "racist" for example, which is hilariously wrong if you know anything about its real history.
All of which translates to: "It's illegal or immoral if somebody else does it, but it's okay if we do."
But back to the main point: the government justifies CALEA because the telcos are federally regulated "common carriers" under Title II. ISPs, websites, and their owners are not. Congress passed a law specifically giving Internet businesses immunity from Title II regulation. (Which was probably a bad idea.) Which means they do not have similar authority over those businesses.
Title II coverage is a trade-off. On the one hand, Title II operations are federally regulated. CALEA-type laws might apply. On the other hand, communications via Title II operations are legally protected. Meta-data cannot be collected without a court order, and the contents of such communications cannot be intercepted (even by the carrier) without a probable-cause warrant.
If we discount illegal NSA surveillance, the Internet would actually be far better off under Title II and a CALEA-type law.
"Only one is patently absurd."
Agreed. Please see my own response above, in which I argue the same thing from a slightly different angle. The central principle is the same.
"I don't have an answer, but "nuh uh I used encryption" sure as hell ain't it."
Actually, yes it is.
You have a RIGHT to privacy, and to private and anonymous speech. (The Supreme Court ruled years ago that we do have this Constitutional right, because without it none of the other rights can exist. The logic is sound.)
Yes, society does have an interest in seeing that criminals are caught and prosecuted. BUT... the real, important question is: given that these two things are in conflict, which one shall trump the other?
Given that without privacy rights (as ruled by the Supreme Court itself), a democratic form of government cannot exist at all, it is the right to privacy that MUST overrule society's interest in prosecuting criminals. After all: we have the ability, and responsibility, to protect ourselves from criminals. But it can be far more difficult to protect ourselves from government.
"There really isn't a lower standard that says you don't need a warrant to force disclosure... Voluntarily giving information doesn't require a warrant, no matter who does the giving. "
You make a good point. But it still seems to me to be an end-run around the warrant requirement, voluntary or not. What right does someone else have to disclose a private deal you made?
The argument tends to go: once you have made a deal with someone else, you have waived any "reasonable expectation of privacy". BUT, I disagree with that basic concept. If you have agreed to keep it private, you have waived nothing. In my opinion, therefore, "voluntarily" giving it to the authorities violates my privacy rights in exactly the same way a warrantless search would.
This DOES presume, however, that it was something you had agreed to keep private.
"And sometimes even the Constitution is unclear, such as the debate about the debt ceiling and whether the 14th amendment applies to it."
There's nothing unclear about it. The purported connection between the 14th amendment and the current debt ceiling is nothing short of hilarious. The 14th amendment says existing debt "shall not be questioned". It says nothing about authorizing further debt.
Obama is trying to argue that if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we MUST default on our debt. This is a ludicrous argument. All the government has to do is CUT SPENDING, and it can still pay its debt. So default is NOT inevitable, and the argument fails.
And beside that: even if we did default on debt, despite government rhetoric to the contrary, it wouldn't be the first time. Nixon did it in 1971, for just one example.
"Like I said, US GDP is overinflated by banks, similar to Luxembourg."
And like I said, the GDP figures I used did not come from the U.S. Try reading what I actually wrote next time.
We all know that figures that come from any given government cannot be relied upon. That's why I generally try to use independent sources.
"What kind of offensive accusations?"
What possible motive do you imagine I might have to answer that question?
By the way: thanks for confirming who you are, and giving me one more thing to record in my log book.
"Have each client generate a public/private key pair, store the private locally, the public on the server, and encrypt each message using the recipient's public key. Stored snaps on the server could only be decrypted with the private key, which the server doesn't have."
I think this sidesteps a troubling point brought up in Snapchat's statement. Since when is anybody obligated to "preserve" anything while government decides to issue a warrant? I don't think any such authority exists.
Either there is a warrant, or there is not. If there is no warrant, I'll do whatever the hell I please with the stuff I have. I am not aware of any authority on the part of the courts to force me to change my daily actions "in anticipation" of a warrant.
he must be another one that thinks the internet is a series of tubes and "uses the googles"
Besides, a "polite request" from government is seldom really polite, and seldom really a request.
Government needs to understand that people often see "government requests" as genuine threats: "Do as we ask, or else." The threat may just be perceived, or it may be real. Sometimes it's hard to tell.
But we must always keep in mind that government authority = force.
"In Soviet Russia, YOU destroy Meteor!"
As I was reading OP, I really, really thought it was going to say "... leaving a 6m-wide hole in the water."
To find that it said ice instead was something of a letdown.
s/CMCA/DMCA
"It still is acting in bad faith. Even though nobody comes out to actively defend a work, it still isn't ethical to recopy and relicense someone else's stuff without permission."
Yes, it very much IS ethical to do so. It just isn't legal. There is a difference.
Until just a very few years ago (around the time of CMCA), in order to enforce a copyright you had to DECLARE it. That means publicly declare who the copyright belongs to, and when the work was produced.
For a number of extremely good reasons, this is still the way it should work. That system worked, and worked fine. There were a number of solid ethical and equity reasons for it being the way it was. It worked MUCH better than the current mess we are in now. Which began at precisely the time they changed the law.
Always keep in mind that laws do not determine ethics. Ethics are supposed to influence the laws. The former doesn't work in the long run. The latter does.
"Why is everyone talking like there even is a problem? In August Android had almost 80% of the market. Yeah, it must be incredibly boring and horrible to use if so many people want it."
Exactly. Further, Feldman is saying that "choice causes problems", when that is so broad a generalization as to be generally incorrect.
TOO MUCH choice CAN cause problems in some markets. But is this one of them? As you say, it has 80% of the market so I think it's accurate to say NO.
Choice is only a problem in specific scenarios. If you want proof that choice is not a problem in general, all you need to do is visit the candy section of your local supermarket.
I don't see it since the primary aspect of the Fifth Amendment is constraints on forcing self-incrimination. Evidence provided by other parties just doesn't qualify, even if it originally came from you, unless it requires you to register evidence of a crime (say a federal law requiring Facebook users to register with Facebook any illegal drug trades they conduct via Facebook). Maybe you're speaking of the Fourth Amendment which is about constraints on searches and seizures?
But I think you're both missing the point I was making. If I have a private business deal with someone else, and it requires a probable-cause warrant to get information about it from ME, why should it take any lower standard of evidence to get it from someone else? Where is the justification for that?
Completely aside from the 5th Amendment, it appears to me to be a rather blatant attempt to get around the "probable cause" requirement.
"Um, a warrant is a court order. The investigators explain to the judges what they suspect, why they suspect it and what and where they need to look to get more evidence. The judge then issues the warrant. "
You are nitpicking, and not even doing it well.
While a warrant is technically a kind of court order, there are other kinds as well. What is commonly referred to as a "court order", a "search warrant", and a "subpoena". They are ALL court orders, but they differ in the standards of evidence that is required for each.
What is commonly called a "court order" has a very low evidence threshold, or even none at all. You are "ordered" by the court to appear on a certain date. You are "ordered" by the court to pay reparations to someone you defrauded. Etc.
A subpoena also has fairly low standard of evidence. You can be subpoenaed by courts for a number of reasons, and there are a great many situations in which a subpoena has no force or can be quashed.
In order to issue a warrant, on the other hand, the court must be shown probable cause. This is a higher standard than either of the other examples above.
However, a defendant's 5th Amendment rights override both warrants and subpoenas. No court in the nation has the authority to violate the 5th Amendment, for any reason.
"Ahh, that conservative selective memory, you corrected with 'modern' in bold, you most certainly did not write 'modern', originally, interesting how you comment proves my rebuttal. To keep in with the spirit of your comment, liar, liar, pants on fire."
Stop being such a large-bore asshole. What I meant in my original comment was quite clear, and now you're just trolling.
Hint: that doesn't earn you any brownie points.
"She was somehow involved in a nefarious act. You mentioned her "refusal" to be polite to an abusive Senator as proof she was hiding something.
Jesus Christ. I have seldom seen the like. You must be the King of weasel-wording. Seriously, all you have done this entire time is distort situations and other peoples' words.
I can only conclude you must be trolling again. But I have to say: kudos on your demonstration of your awesome "impenetrable wall of obtuseness". If I were a corrupt government official I would not hesitate for a second to hire you.
Have a not-so-nice day.
JQP: try not to let him get to you too much; while he likely does reside in the US where he could face lawsuits/fines/jailtime/ostracization/severely limited job pool for the stuff he's written (if it is indeed the same guy), he could be from anywhere American English is spoken, and not all countries have such strict stalking laws (although some have harsher ones).
The point is that I am pretty sure that I know who it is, and IF I am correct, he both lives in the United States, and has crossed the legal line more than once. He has harassed me on a number of occasions, and publicly made some rather ridiculous (but nevertheless offensive) accusations.
"US GDP is overinflated by the huge financial "industry"."
Though I linked to Wikipedia for convenience, the figures I used came from the UN, not the US government.
"Statistics of all three sources say that Luxembourg, which is another "Western nation" by the way, is 30% more productive than USA."
And has a population of not much more than the town I live in. So what? I wrote "on average", which means the mean GDP per capita in "western" nations, which is VERY FAR from that of Luxembourg. If you want to know specifically what "western" means, I am willing to go by either the "Human Development quartile" or "Huntington's Map", also from Wikipedia, because I don't feel like looking up the damned UN data again.
But just to be clear: I wrote "average". I didn't say it was the highest in the world, I wrote that it as higher than THE AVERAGE of Western nations.
Besides: the court has another, arguably "more American" avenue: it can order the defendant to turn over the information. (If, that is, it doesn't violate his 5th Amendment rights.)
I never did buy this concept that just because you have a business deal with someone, the court could order THEM to turn over personal papers related to you. Seems to me, the same standard of getting a warrant should apply. Otherwise, the whole purpose of warrants is being subverted.
Let the courts criticize. There's not a damned thing they can do. They have no legal authority to order people to make their websites police-friendly.
"I hate to break it to you, but half the male muslims in the world meet the same profile. And the vast majority of them don't try and crash airplanes into buildings."
No, they don't. Half the male muslims in the world did not have known suspicious connections, engage in known suspicious activities, etc. These guys WERE flagged by other agencies, but the word apparently didn't get around.
They were hardly your "average" guys.