The fourth amendment's applicability is only certain in the minds of privacy advocates. Legally, the fourth amendment is generally held to mean that the government can't disrupt your life with its searches or target someone specifically without a good enough reason to convince a judge. The NSA's sniffing is legally comparable to a police dragnet checking door-to-door for a suspect - it infringes privacy, but the impact on any particular person's life isn't unreasonable.
No, it's not.
It's more like the police break into your house at night while you're asleep, check all your drawers and wardrobe, listen to all messages in your answer machine, mess with all your family photos, browse all dirty mags hidden under the bed of your son, scan all your daughter panties, maybe taking something from your fridge, then leaving no trace behind.
No impact or disruption in your life at all. But utterly amoral.
It's not a question if is Legal or Not Legal. Legality is irrelevant. It's a question about if it's can be done or not.
People make Laws, Laws don't make People. People change Laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Now I have to check if my insurance cover death by division by zero.
Now we just need one those software that generates a full HD image from 100x zoomed 186 pixels pictures.
Alderaan Nevah Forget!
X-Files to Return -> Meh... Mulder and Scully to Return -> Dear good Lord! Awesome!
That why I feel that is right to sue KFC for not serve me Big Macs...
"On top of all that, their target audiences are completely different." You mean, hipster's kids? Kid hipsters?
People Who Use Firefox Or Chrome Make Better Employees = Dubious claim. People Who Use Internet Explorer Make Bad Employees = Fact.
First World Problems.
The fourth amendment's applicability is only certain in the minds of privacy advocates. Legally, the fourth amendment is generally held to mean that the government can't disrupt your life with its searches or target someone specifically without a good enough reason to convince a judge. The NSA's sniffing is legally comparable to a police dragnet checking door-to-door for a suspect - it infringes privacy, but the impact on any particular person's life isn't unreasonable.
No, it's not. It's more like the police break into your house at night while you're asleep, check all your drawers and wardrobe, listen to all messages in your answer machine, mess with all your family photos, browse all dirty mags hidden under the bed of your son, scan all your daughter panties, maybe taking something from your fridge, then leaving no trace behind. No impact or disruption in your life at all. But utterly amoral. It's not a question if is Legal or Not Legal. Legality is irrelevant. It's a question about if it's can be done or not. People make Laws, Laws don't make People. People change Laws.