A person's speech is their effect, regardless of the medium used to transmit it.
No. This is decidedly false considering anything you do/say in public can be used against you without a warrant. The air inside your house is contained within your house, which you own. If you're so freaking loud that someone could hear you across the street, that could be used against you as well.
I have a difficult time seeing how a phone line or satellite that you don't own or operate counts as an "effect". The physical phone? Sure. The lines inside your house? Sure. If you want to talk from the upstairs to the downstairs, knock yourself out, but once that conversation leaves your house, I assume it's at the discretion of the phone company.
Not that I'm arguing a legal point with you; I'm actually not sure whether phone conversations are directly covered by the 4th amendment, other than the reasonable expectation of privacy that has been used before, and I couldn't cite a case to that effect anyways.
But SCOTUS case law has interpreted the Consitution so that calls are covered by the Fourth Ammendment.
In the case you reference, the first bullet of the summary says:
(a) The Fourth Amendment's protections include "conversation," and the use of electronic devices to capture it was a "search" within the meaning of that Amendment.
The NSA didn't have access to the "coversation", or the "content", of the communication. Subtle point, but it's important when considering definitions in the US Code for "content" of a communication.
Unless someone here is a telecommunications lawyer, I doubt any of us have the knowledge to determine whether or not this is covered by varying definitions and decisions made in the past. I'll contend that it might be and it might not be, but some judge will have to make that decision.
but the telephone companies are also expected to not just roll over and give the data to someone else who does not have a warrant.
Or do you think it's OK for me to get hold of your records without permission?
You're asking moral questions, which mean absolutely nothing since none of us (assuming) are Congressman. Ask *legal* questions. Is it *legal* for telcos to turn over data, and is it *legal* for the government to get hold of your records without permission. I haven't found anything that points to 'no' for either question. All the telecommunication acts seem to address wiretapping but not connection data, i.e. the content is off-limits but information about the calls is not.
As has been pointed out in other places, if this were like a pen registers, you'd be correct...this is not. The government asked for the records the phone company legally keeps. The phone companies complied. There was no tapping or intercepting involved in this request.
Snarkiness and condescension aside, you took out the important part of my statement, involving communication over satellites and using a corporation's wires. Since you want to be snide about it, here's the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How you construe talk over phone lines that a corporate entity owns to be included in persons, houses, papers and effects is beyond me...quite a stretch. While we've made laws that cover this, in some instances, don't pretend that the 4th amendment allows you to have a conversation any time, any place without it being heard by others, including the government.
your phone calls are already someone else's business (the phone companies).
True, and I tend to agree with you, but there's some debate between intelligent folk whether or not communications laws have been enacted that make it illegal for the phone companies to share this information. While I haven't found anything that explicitly states that, I'm open to the possibility, but until somebody shows me the exact law, I'm with you.
I do think it was wrong of the government to ask, but it was clearly wrong for the phone companies to roll over.
Not at all...look in your terms of service or customer agreement with your phone company. I guarantee you there are provisions in there for them turning over your records to law enforcement. The real question is when can they do that and under what conditions. After searching for quite a while yesterday, the legalese got to me...seemingly redefining 'intercept', 'contents' and 'exigent conditions' with their own meanings made my head hurt.
So you're arguing that the freedom to hold a conversation, talking on a telephone over wires/satellites that are owned by a corporation whose TOS you agreed to, without having any portion of or information about that conversation revealed is an "essential" freedom? Due process, land ownership, speech, gun ownership...those I would classify as essential freedoms. This? Hardly.
Explain why the NSA request is legal and Joe Smith's isn't WITHOUT using "because they are the government" as an answer.
Maybe legal isn't the right word. An interesting entry on Wikipedia:
Since they operate for-profit, commercial organizations also cannot spend an unlimited amount on precautions and remain competitive - a commercial context tends to limit privacy measures, and to motivate organizations to share data when working in partnership. This has led to many moral hazards and outrageous customer privacy violation incidents, and has led to consumer privacy laws in most countries, especially in the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The United States has no such law and relies on corporate customer privacy to ensure consumer privacy in general.
Take it with a wiki grain of salt, but if true then it's up to the telcos to regulate how and when private information can be disclosed. Their own privacy policy stipulates what they will and will not share; if the government isn't included in that, why can't they share anything they collect?
IANAL either, but I believe a lawful request would be one made within the bounds of the legal system. In other words, Joe Smith asking for these records would violate federal consumer protection acts, but the NSA asking for it doesn't. Companies must comply with some privacy measures to protect your information from the rest of the public, but I believe they are free to distribute what they want to government agencies.
FWIW, I don't think "We have a warrant" would be a lawful request; it would be a court mandate.
If the NSA or a law enforcement agency were forcing the telcos to hand over the numbers, I would agree they would need a court order to force the telcos to comply. That isn't happening. The telcos are complying on their own. Just like the police don't need a warrant if someone offers to let them search their house, the NSA doesn't need a warrant if the telcos oblige and turn over their records. Can you, the consumer, sue the telco? Possibly, I think that's why Qwest opted out of the program, but the NSA is still in the clear.
The government is supposed to follow things like "due process,"
The government can request any information it wants, this has nothing to do with due process or prosecution. Qwest didn't want to comply so they didn't...the others did. Where's the law that says companies can't turn your phone records? You're talking on their lines, after all, so unless you point to something in your contract or TOS, I think you're wrong.
What's the legal issue with a government agency asking a company to disclose something? AFAIK, they can ask me what color underwear I'm wearing, but I'm not required to tell them. If you're saying that they shouldn't do this, I'd be happy to have that discussion, but it sounds like you're saying they aren't allowed to do this. There, I disagree, and I've seen nothing to the contrary. The fourth amendment protects you form unlawful searches, so show me the law that says they can't request this information.
I have...there's nothing unlawful about asking a corporation for information and, if that corporation gives it over willingly, there's nothing wrong with them possessing it. I recommend *you* read the 4th and 9th amendments and back up your condescending statement with some proof.
You're forgetting the unwritten addendum: "However, if the government asks a private corporation for something and they acquiesce, no harm, no foul."
Seriously, can people STOP quoting the fourth amendment without realizing there's a 3rd, corporate party in this matter that agreed to handover records. Qwest didnt, yay them, but it's their choice not to and the other companyies choice *to* do that.
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
Because the companies are cooperating with the government and YOU just don't happen to like that doesn't make in unconstitutional, it means that the companies disagree with your definition of privacy.
Additionally, if Qwest opted not to turn over records, I think that just proves my point. The government isn't seizing records; if companies don't want to participate they don't have to. There's no question of constitutionality here.
If he knew what the hell he was doing, he wouldn't need to be in my class in the first place.
I agree with everything you said up until this. From experience, some classes are mandatory in order for you to get a piece of paper that certifies you've done/you can do something. Most of my undergrad CS classes were a joke, I *didn't* need to be there for them, but getting hired without a CpE/CS degree would have been difficult.
Additionally, there were some classes I had to go to just to figure out how my professor wanted me to answer a question. I spent 30 minutes arguing a single answer with a prof after one exam, and he eventually concluded with "Your answer is technically correct, but it's not what I was looking for." In those classes, attending class was more for figuring the prof's style than comprehending the material.
In *no way* does this excuse a student that's disrupting class; no, that person is being a twirp. But your statement is an arrogant approach to teaching a class in a curriculum that requires certain credits.
I don't think he's a Republican, I think he's conservative on many issues. Can we disassociate conservative/liberal with Republican/Democrat? There ARE some who cross those lines, and I don't think they should be expelled from party ranks because they lean slightly to the other direction from the rest of the party. Without people who don't see eye to eye with their entire party, like Lieberman or Chaffey, you end up with two completely polarized parties that won't agree on anything or get anything done.
True Progressives do not have a voice in today's government - they are only heard in obscure, online blogs.
What's your definition of Progressive? Some, including myself, would say that the Progressives have achieved most of their goals; Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid make up a HUGE portion of the federal budget, abortion is legal albeit protected with a band-aid, civil rights of minorities are protected, etc. What else are you looking for?
I guess I'm wondering what more people with your definition of Progressive want to accomplish. When I thought of myself as a Progressive, I sorta envisioned the situation we have today, give or take.
--trb
Re:Right and left are false dichotomies
on
Netroots Politics
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
To a certain extent, both Democrats and Republicans do all of the above. The problem is, if you measure each of your points listed above on a sliding scale of how well a party/politician has achieved them, in order for all of *your* sliders to be perfectly aligned, the party/politician has to have pissed off, in some way, 99% of the people in the country.
Everyone has a different threshold on these ideals; for instance, you say you want civil liberties defended to the hilt. What's that mean? No more search warrants because they're an invasion of my civil liberties? Okay, the police can no longer search a person's house and most murder investigations never get solved. Is that too extreme for you? Why? *MY* slider has defense of civil liberties all the way to the right, while *YOURS* is set at 80%.
The short answer to your question is "No", and the long answer involves something about accepting a compromise and focusing on reforming our current laws.
Seriously, from an outsider's POV, the biggest problem with American politics is the hysterical 'left = teh evil' and 'anyone left of the Democrats is a filthy rotten subversive baby-eating pinko Communist!' mentality, fostered by over half a century of Cold War based propaganda.
Okay, as a counterpoint, nobody even talks about people to the right of the Republicans. Why? 'Here there be fascist Nazis'. People acknowledge and speak about political ideology further to the left of Democrats, and it isn't all bad. Ideologies at either end of the spectrum have positives and negatives depending on what your world view is.
Knowing that EZ Pass and Smarttag (here in Virginia) just merged not too long ago, I can tell you that Smarttag used to take any fines or overcharges they would levy out of your state income taxes. Don't know if that's still the policy.
The only people who really benefit from offshoring are the business owners who can costs by firing American workers and replacing them with cheap overseas labor.
Consumers, which we all are, benefit as well because cheaper labor means a cheaper product. Sucks for the laborer who loses his job, but hey, that's free market capitalism.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both
Okay, just stop stop stop. You're butchering the quote and as a result perverting it for your own uses:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
It's not the case that giving up any liberty for security is a lose-lose situation, it's giving up the essential liberties. Make a subjective argument out of that, but without including that modifier you're including any creep on liberties, which obviously isn't the case; there are plenty of laws on the books that even you would agree are good that involve limiting civil liberties, they just don't pass your threshhold.
Slashdot Mirror
A person's speech is their effect, regardless of the medium used to transmit it.
No. This is decidedly false considering anything you do/say in public can be used against you without a warrant. The air inside your house is contained within your house, which you own. If you're so freaking loud that someone could hear you across the street, that could be used against you as well.
--trb
I have a difficult time seeing how a phone line or satellite that you don't own or operate counts as an "effect". The physical phone? Sure. The lines inside your house? Sure. If you want to talk from the upstairs to the downstairs, knock yourself out, but once that conversation leaves your house, I assume it's at the discretion of the phone company.
Not that I'm arguing a legal point with you; I'm actually not sure whether phone conversations are directly covered by the 4th amendment, other than the reasonable expectation of privacy that has been used before, and I couldn't cite a case to that effect anyways.
--trb
But SCOTUS case law has interpreted the Consitution so that calls are covered by the Fourth Ammendment.
In the case you reference, the first bullet of the summary says:
(a) The Fourth Amendment's protections include "conversation," and the use of electronic devices to capture it was a "search" within the meaning of that Amendment.
The NSA didn't have access to the "coversation", or the "content", of the communication. Subtle point, but it's important when considering definitions in the US Code for "content" of a communication.
Unless someone here is a telecommunications lawyer, I doubt any of us have the knowledge to determine whether or not this is covered by varying definitions and decisions made in the past. I'll contend that it might be and it might not be, but some judge will have to make that decision.
--trb
but the telephone companies are also expected to not just roll over and give the data to someone else who does not have a warrant.
Or do you think it's OK for me to get hold of your records without permission?
You're asking moral questions, which mean absolutely nothing since none of us (assuming) are Congressman. Ask *legal* questions. Is it *legal* for telcos to turn over data, and is it *legal* for the government to get hold of your records without permission. I haven't found anything that points to 'no' for either question. All the telecommunication acts seem to address wiretapping but not connection data, i.e. the content is off-limits but information about the calls is not.
--trb
As has been pointed out in other places, if this were like a pen registers, you'd be correct...this is not. The government asked for the records the phone company legally keeps. The phone companies complied. There was no tapping or intercepting involved in this request.
--trb
Snarkiness and condescension aside, you took out the important part of my statement, involving communication over satellites and using a corporation's wires. Since you want to be snide about it, here's the 4th amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
How you construe talk over phone lines that a corporate entity owns to be included in persons, houses, papers and effects is beyond me...quite a stretch. While we've made laws that cover this, in some instances, don't pretend that the 4th amendment allows you to have a conversation any time, any place without it being heard by others, including the government.
--trb
your phone calls are already someone else's business (the phone companies).
True, and I tend to agree with you, but there's some debate between intelligent folk whether or not communications laws have been enacted that make it illegal for the phone companies to share this information. While I haven't found anything that explicitly states that, I'm open to the possibility, but until somebody shows me the exact law, I'm with you.
I do think it was wrong of the government to ask, but it was clearly wrong for the phone companies to roll over.
Not at all...look in your terms of service or customer agreement with your phone company. I guarantee you there are provisions in there for them turning over your records to law enforcement. The real question is when can they do that and under what conditions. After searching for quite a while yesterday, the legalese got to me...seemingly redefining 'intercept', 'contents' and 'exigent conditions' with their own meanings made my head hurt.
--trb
So you're arguing that the freedom to hold a conversation, talking on a telephone over wires/satellites that are owned by a corporation whose TOS you agreed to, without having any portion of or information about that conversation revealed is an "essential" freedom? Due process, land ownership, speech, gun ownership...those I would classify as essential freedoms. This? Hardly.
--trb
Explain why the NSA request is legal and Joe Smith's isn't WITHOUT using "because they are the government" as an answer.
Maybe legal isn't the right word. An interesting entry on Wikipedia:
Since they operate for-profit, commercial organizations also cannot spend an unlimited amount on precautions and remain competitive - a commercial context tends to limit privacy measures, and to motivate organizations to share data when working in partnership. This has led to many moral hazards and outrageous customer privacy violation incidents, and has led to consumer privacy laws in most countries, especially in the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The United States has no such law and relies on corporate customer privacy to ensure consumer privacy in general.
Take it with a wiki grain of salt, but if true then it's up to the telcos to regulate how and when private information can be disclosed. Their own privacy policy stipulates what they will and will not share; if the government isn't included in that, why can't they share anything they collect?
--trb
IANAL either, but I believe a lawful request would be one made within the bounds of the legal system. In other words, Joe Smith asking for these records would violate federal consumer protection acts, but the NSA asking for it doesn't. Companies must comply with some privacy measures to protect your information from the rest of the public, but I believe they are free to distribute what they want to government agencies.
FWIW, I don't think "We have a warrant" would be a lawful request; it would be a court mandate.
--trb
If the NSA or a law enforcement agency were forcing the telcos to hand over the numbers, I would agree they would need a court order to force the telcos to comply. That isn't happening. The telcos are complying on their own. Just like the police don't need a warrant if someone offers to let them search their house, the NSA doesn't need a warrant if the telcos oblige and turn over their records. Can you, the consumer, sue the telco? Possibly, I think that's why Qwest opted out of the program, but the NSA is still in the clear.
--trb
The government is supposed to follow things like "due process,"
The government can request any information it wants, this has nothing to do with due process or prosecution. Qwest didn't want to comply so they didn't...the others did. Where's the law that says companies can't turn your phone records? You're talking on their lines, after all, so unless you point to something in your contract or TOS, I think you're wrong.
--trb
What's the legal issue with a government agency asking a company to disclose something? AFAIK, they can ask me what color underwear I'm wearing, but I'm not required to tell them. If you're saying that they shouldn't do this, I'd be happy to have that discussion, but it sounds like you're saying they aren't allowed to do this. There, I disagree, and I've seen nothing to the contrary. The fourth amendment protects you form unlawful searches, so show me the law that says they can't request this information.
--trb
I have...there's nothing unlawful about asking a corporation for information and, if that corporation gives it over willingly, there's nothing wrong with them possessing it. I recommend *you* read the 4th and 9th amendments and back up your condescending statement with some proof.
--trb
You're forgetting the unwritten addendum: "However, if the government asks a private corporation for something and they acquiesce, no harm, no foul."
Seriously, can people STOP quoting the fourth amendment without realizing there's a 3rd, corporate party in this matter that agreed to handover records. Qwest didnt, yay them, but it's their choice not to and the other companyies choice *to* do that.
--trb
Perhaps, in a long shot, they might put an end to these blatantly unconstitutional programs.
How is this unconstitutional? From the AP/Yahoo story:
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
Because the companies are cooperating with the government and YOU just don't happen to like that doesn't make in unconstitutional, it means that the companies disagree with your definition of privacy.
Additionally, if Qwest opted not to turn over records, I think that just proves my point. The government isn't seizing records; if companies don't want to participate they don't have to. There's no question of constitutionality here.
--trb
If he knew what the hell he was doing, he wouldn't need to be in my class in the first place.
I agree with everything you said up until this. From experience, some classes are mandatory in order for you to get a piece of paper that certifies you've done/you can do something. Most of my undergrad CS classes were a joke, I *didn't* need to be there for them, but getting hired without a CpE/CS degree would have been difficult.
Additionally, there were some classes I had to go to just to figure out how my professor wanted me to answer a question. I spent 30 minutes arguing a single answer with a prof after one exam, and he eventually concluded with "Your answer is technically correct, but it's not what I was looking for." In those classes, attending class was more for figuring the prof's style than comprehending the material.
In *no way* does this excuse a student that's disrupting class; no, that person is being a twirp. But your statement is an arrogant approach to teaching a class in a curriculum that requires certain credits.
--trb
That's because he's actually a Republican
I don't think he's a Republican, I think he's conservative on many issues. Can we disassociate conservative/liberal with Republican/Democrat? There ARE some who cross those lines, and I don't think they should be expelled from party ranks because they lean slightly to the other direction from the rest of the party. Without people who don't see eye to eye with their entire party, like Lieberman or Chaffey, you end up with two completely polarized parties that won't agree on anything or get anything done.
--trb
True Progressives do not have a voice in today's government - they are only heard in obscure, online blogs.
What's your definition of Progressive? Some, including myself, would say that the Progressives have achieved most of their goals; Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid make up a HUGE portion of the federal budget, abortion is legal albeit protected with a band-aid, civil rights of minorities are protected, etc. What else are you looking for?
I guess I'm wondering what more people with your definition of Progressive want to accomplish. When I thought of myself as a Progressive, I sorta envisioned the situation we have today, give or take.
--trb
To a certain extent, both Democrats and Republicans do all of the above. The problem is, if you measure each of your points listed above on a sliding scale of how well a party/politician has achieved them, in order for all of *your* sliders to be perfectly aligned, the party/politician has to have pissed off, in some way, 99% of the people in the country.
Everyone has a different threshold on these ideals; for instance, you say you want civil liberties defended to the hilt. What's that mean? No more search warrants because they're an invasion of my civil liberties? Okay, the police can no longer search a person's house and most murder investigations never get solved. Is that too extreme for you? Why? *MY* slider has defense of civil liberties all the way to the right, while *YOURS* is set at 80%.
The short answer to your question is "No", and the long answer involves something about accepting a compromise and focusing on reforming our current laws.
--trb
Seriously, from an outsider's POV, the biggest problem with American politics is the hysterical 'left = teh evil' and 'anyone left of the Democrats is a filthy rotten subversive baby-eating pinko Communist!' mentality, fostered by over half a century of Cold War based propaganda.
Okay, as a counterpoint, nobody even talks about people to the right of the Republicans. Why? 'Here there be fascist Nazis'. People acknowledge and speak about political ideology further to the left of Democrats, and it isn't all bad. Ideologies at either end of the spectrum have positives and negatives depending on what your world view is.
--trb
Knowing that EZ Pass and Smarttag (here in Virginia) just merged not too long ago, I can tell you that Smarttag used to take any fines or overcharges they would levy out of your state income taxes. Don't know if that's still the policy.
--trb
The only people who really benefit from offshoring are the business owners who can costs by firing American workers and replacing them with cheap overseas labor.
Consumers, which we all are, benefit as well because cheaper labor means a cheaper product. Sucks for the laborer who loses his job, but hey, that's free market capitalism.
--trb
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both
Okay, just stop stop stop. You're butchering the quote and as a result perverting it for your own uses:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
It's not the case that giving up any liberty for security is a lose-lose situation, it's giving up the essential liberties. Make a subjective argument out of that, but without including that modifier you're including any creep on liberties, which obviously isn't the case; there are plenty of laws on the books that even you would agree are good that involve limiting civil liberties, they just don't pass your threshhold.
--trb
I think you're confusing the PATRIOT Act with the DMCA.
--trb