I'm not measuring the US here. The US has a crap tonne of it's own problems it needs to sort the fuck out. How it's supposed to do that I really don't know as half of it's problems seem to be caused by not enough freedom and the other half by too much, but that's rather beside the point. My point is that the "Anyone but America Brigade" are the worst kind of idiots because, however horrendous the actions of America have been, there isn't anyone better out there to replace them. If there was another country without blood on its hands to take over, well great, but there's no such place.
Actually Yahoo challenged the FISA orders. They lost and so they complied. Google may or may not have.
The thing you're not understanding. FISA is a court, it might be a ridiculous court that rubber stamps every government request, but it's still a court. It's presided over by judges and it's orders carry the full force of the law. These aren't the usual fishing expeditions which Google and others can and do say no to, these are legally equivalent to a warrant. I don't know whether anyone would have been charged with treason, but they sure as hell could have been charged with obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court and tossed in jail anyway.
Yes, Germany is a bastion of privacy and free speech. Oh, unless you want to say anything positive about Hitler or deny the holocaust which is against the law (note I am neither pro Hitler or a Holocaust denier, I'm merely pointing out Germany isn't free either). That's leaving aside what would they actually host with 99% of the content hosted in the US or what they would host their content on.
Man, what the hell kind of dream world are you living in. China may not give a crap how many pressure cookers you want to buy, but they sure as fuck care about your political opinions. Especially if you are or ever were Chinese. Ask any Chinese dissident whether they'd prefer the US was spying on them or China, hell ask most US dissidents.
The US spies on you, but for the most part it seems to have done a whole lot of nothing with any of the information that it has gathered, it's also restricted by law in terms of what it can prosecute you for. China is not, and has already hacked services to get the personal information of people who have "wrong" opinions and then arrested those individuals.
My fucking god I'm getting sick of this idea that China and Russia are good guys who don't oppress their people like the evil US does. The US is only bush league evil, China and Russia are major league.
For the purposes of this argument any service which has any physical presence in the US whatsoever is a service based in the US. All such companies are required to comply with US law, which would include FISA warrants. That's the tricky bit you see.
Fundamentally the reason that the internet is US centric is partially the fact that ICANN is located in the US, but mostly because the most used services are based in the US. To create a truly non US-centric model you would have to relocate ICANN and come up with significant competitors to people like Google etc who have no US presence(once they have a US presence they're subject to all the same laws that allow the NSA to spy on you in the first place).
You could technically achieve this, but the countries which could be candidates for replacing the US in this position are not Brazil and would also spy on traffic. So unless this is yet another pissing match where idiots go in with the slogan "Anyone but the US", making the internet non US centric is a gigantic waste of everyone's time and money. I mean does anyone seriously believe that if Chinese companies displaced the US ones that China wouldn't spy on everyone, or that the Europeans wouldn't either also spy or allow the NSA to spy?
People teach intelligent design because they're afraid that if their kids grow up to be less ignorant and blinkered than they are their kids will leave them either physically or emotionally. Lots of parents try to define small universes that keep their kids close, and not just right wing fundies either, this kind of crap transcends political divides.
It's a legitimate concern, if you let your kids break down the walls that hold you in they might go somewhere you can't follow, but it could probably be better dealt with by addressing your own problems rather than creating problems for your children.
To start with, the main reason that companies "go get it" is because the alternative is having the FBI rooting around in their server room looking at everything they have trying to find the evidence they need. The FBI would love this of course because anything they find incidental to that search would be evidence they could use so long as they could legitimately have stumbled upon it during the search. Crap for both civil rights and the companies involved.
To continue, I doubt you're ever going to find a judge who will agree that a company complying with a legal search warrant is involuntary servitude. My argument was never that involuntary servitude is constitutional, merely that you're going to have a hard time getting that accepted as involuntary servitude. It'd be like arguing that while the government is permitted to collect taxes, they can't make you pay them or make your bank retrieve them or grant them access to retrieve them themselves because that would be involuntary servitude.
A lot of people love to make judicial leaps like this, interpreting the constitution the way they feel it should be, oddly enough they're often the same people who scream about abuse of the interstate commerce clause and are otherwise strict in their interpretation of the constitution. Under our constitution as it currently stands, it doesn't matter a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys what you think is unconstitutional, no matter how thoroughly you can back it up. It doesn't even actually matter if Congress passes a law that is directly contradicted by the constitution. The supreme court is the final and ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, if they've decided something is acceptable, it is, if they've decided something isn't, it isn't. If they haven't decided anything it's up in the air. I know that's hard to take but your opinion and my opinion doesn't actually matter, it's a handful of people in robes, most of whom are political appointments.
Except bimbo isn't the same meaning as dick. You can call a woman a dick and everyone will know what you mean. The fact that you'd never use that word to describe a man and that there in fact is no male equivalent to the word is why it's sexist. We don't ever ascribe bimbo to men despite the fact that plenty of men would actually fit the definition, pretty much anyone on the Jersey Shore for example. We don't use it though, we don't say men are vain and vapid and unfit for their positions as leaders, we especially don't ever say it about men who have earned their way to leadership positions and actually been quite successful in those positions. No one would ever call Bill Gates or Steve Jobs a bimbo. They wouldn't even call Steve Balmer a bimbo.
Think about that for a minute. Every single one of those CEO's caved to exactly the same requests, some without actually fighting it as much as she has, but it's the blonde woman we call a bimbo. It's sexist, it's unacceptable and personally I'm tired of it.
The only person the government should tell about a warrant is the subject of that warrant. They should have full access to that warrant and any evidence supporting it immediately upon being charged and be at least notified that a warrant has been served if no charges are laid. The subject of the warrant should then have the right to tell anyone they damned feel like about that warrant and the evidence supporting it. Note btw that Yahoo is not the subject of the warrant, they should be able to report some aggregate warrant related statistics, but they should not be able to report the details of any specific warrant or the evidence supporting it with the exception of the subject of the warrant as specified above.
That doesn't mean that yahoo shouldn't be able to say how many warrants they are receiving in aggregate, or how they are responding to those warrants, or whether most of these warrants are targeted or fishing expeditions. They should be able to do so.
Yes the US government can require you to turn something over if they have proof that you have it, as can any damned government and if they have a legal warrant for it. This goes doubly so for service providers like Yahoo. The fact that they can do this does not make you a slave, nor does it punish you with servitude or any fucking thing else you want to misinterpret.
Bullshit like this is why we have no god damned rights anymore, because whenever anyone tries to have a discussion about what's actually going on we get this kind of crap. If I hear one more idiot spout off about how the government is enslaving them, I'm going to lose it. LEARN YOUR GOD DAMNED FUCKING RIGHTS THE ONES YOU ACTUALLY HAVE AND WHICH MILLIONS HAVE DIED TO PROTECT. IF YOU SPENT HALF THE ENERGY YOU DO SPOUTING BULLSHIT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS YOU ACTUALLY HAVE PRISM WOULDN'T EXIST
I know that. I said he isn't a traitor. The number of reasons why he isn't a traitor are numerous and extensive, though in actuality the fact that he's not an American is not one of the top 10 as if he actually qualified as a traitor in the US he'd qualify as a traitor to Australia the country he is actually a citizen of.
I'm not saying that in every case denying that warrant is treason. I'm not saying that she's get convicted. Assange is certainly not a traitor, Snowden may or may not be, but not because he revealed the information.
My point is that IF a warrant is issued to collect information on an actual enemy of the US, and IF that warrant is not legally complied with a case could be made that the person refusing to comply with that warrant is aiding an enemy of the US. Aiding an enemy of the US is, per the constitution, treason.
The warrants shouldn't be public. No warrants should actually be public. That's a horrendous breach of the privacy of the subject of the warrant. Imagine you get searched for kiddie porn and they don't find anything, releasing that warrant to the public would damage you horribly.
The subject should have a right to see the warrant and the evidence used to issue it. We should know how many warrants are being filed, but never what they're actually for.
Several million years of human history show that people very rarely take consequences for things they don't have to, but if you feel like being scientific go ahead, ask as many people as you like, find one who says they'd do otherwise.
Heck I'll ask right here, is there one single person reading this who would leave the evidence for the cops to show up and find if they got notice they were coming?
Going to war against the US as a US citizen is treason, but so is aiding enemies of the US. A war is not required to have an enemy, and it's not by any means a stretch to say that Osama bin Laden for instance was an enemy.
Aside from the fact that the initial compliance was probably done under the watch of her predecessor, what she has is a bunch of lawyers who will tell her that if she attempts to challenge a court order she will spend millions and almost certainly lose. She could actually potentially be charged with Treason, though it is unlikely. The section you have referenced states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". It's not a stretch to say that actual terrorists are enemies of this country or that protecting them from prosecution by refusing to comply with a legal court order would be providing them aid and comfort. She'd probably win that case, but the clause doesn't say what you think it does.
If someone called me up and said "hey we've got a warrant to look for ______ we'll be round in half an hour" ______ would not be found in my home when they got there. I'm absolutely 100% sure that the same would be true of you and almost every single other person in this world. Anyone who didn't do that may as well say "I'll save you the trouble officer, I have _________ in my home, I'll pop round so you can arrest me". That's human nature.
Do I necessarily agree with FISA warrants, no, they're a rubber stamp and far too much about them is secret. At minimum we should have an idea how many are being served and persons who are charged based on evidence obtained under them should have access to the evidence used to apply for them.
That said, claiming that people won't dispose of evidence if given the opportunity to do so is idiotc.
I think she believes that she, or her employees might face jail time if they refused to comply with a court order. At the very least there would be significant financial penalties for her company resulting in the loss of many jobs.
I also have no doubt that "Treason" was the word used by the people who came to see her or her predecessor(she hasn't actually been in the role that long).
I would also like to take this time to state that I am sick and god damned tired of sexist trolls like yourself using terms like "bimbo" because you disagree with what someone has said. Grow the fuck up.
The plaintiff doesn't have to do anything of the sort. The plaintiff doesn't even have to prove that she is more qualified than the person they ultimately hired, merely that she was qualified for the position. H1B and the like require you to hire locally if possible first.
The talent your friend has isn't actually hitting a ball with a piece of wood, it's probably a combination of spatial awareness and coordination. He or she is probably also really good at a number of things which involve knowing where something is going to be and knowing how to put something else where you want it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not measuring the US here. The US has a crap tonne of it's own problems it needs to sort the fuck out. How it's supposed to do that I really don't know as half of it's problems seem to be caused by not enough freedom and the other half by too much, but that's rather beside the point. My point is that the "Anyone but America Brigade" are the worst kind of idiots because, however horrendous the actions of America have been, there isn't anyone better out there to replace them. If there was another country without blood on its hands to take over, well great, but there's no such place.
Yes, I got my acronyms wrong, my point is still true though. It's a legally binding court order however stupid it might be.
Actually Yahoo challenged the FISA orders. They lost and so they complied. Google may or may not have.
The thing you're not understanding. FISA is a court, it might be a ridiculous court that rubber stamps every government request, but it's still a court. It's presided over by judges and it's orders carry the full force of the law. These aren't the usual fishing expeditions which Google and others can and do say no to, these are legally equivalent to a warrant. I don't know whether anyone would have been charged with treason, but they sure as hell could have been charged with obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court and tossed in jail anyway.
Yes, Germany is a bastion of privacy and free speech. Oh, unless you want to say anything positive about Hitler or deny the holocaust which is against the law (note I am neither pro Hitler or a Holocaust denier, I'm merely pointing out Germany isn't free either). That's leaving aside what would they actually host with 99% of the content hosted in the US or what they would host their content on.
As another point, Google no longer have operations in China for the specific reason that having any offices there subjected them to Chinese law.
Man, what the hell kind of dream world are you living in. China may not give a crap how many pressure cookers you want to buy, but they sure as fuck care about your political opinions. Especially if you are or ever were Chinese. Ask any Chinese dissident whether they'd prefer the US was spying on them or China, hell ask most US dissidents.
The US spies on you, but for the most part it seems to have done a whole lot of nothing with any of the information that it has gathered, it's also restricted by law in terms of what it can prosecute you for. China is not, and has already hacked services to get the personal information of people who have "wrong" opinions and then arrested those individuals.
My fucking god I'm getting sick of this idea that China and Russia are good guys who don't oppress their people like the evil US does. The US is only bush league evil, China and Russia are major league.
For the purposes of this argument any service which has any physical presence in the US whatsoever is a service based in the US. All such companies are required to comply with US law, which would include FISA warrants. That's the tricky bit you see.
Fundamentally the reason that the internet is US centric is partially the fact that ICANN is located in the US, but mostly because the most used services are based in the US. To create a truly non US-centric model you would have to relocate ICANN and come up with significant competitors to people like Google etc who have no US presence(once they have a US presence they're subject to all the same laws that allow the NSA to spy on you in the first place).
You could technically achieve this, but the countries which could be candidates for replacing the US in this position are not Brazil and would also spy on traffic. So unless this is yet another pissing match where idiots go in with the slogan "Anyone but the US", making the internet non US centric is a gigantic waste of everyone's time and money. I mean does anyone seriously believe that if Chinese companies displaced the US ones that China wouldn't spy on everyone, or that the Europeans wouldn't either also spy or allow the NSA to spy?
People teach intelligent design because they're afraid that if their kids grow up to be less ignorant and blinkered than they are their kids will leave them either physically or emotionally. Lots of parents try to define small universes that keep their kids close, and not just right wing fundies either, this kind of crap transcends political divides.
It's a legitimate concern, if you let your kids break down the walls that hold you in they might go somewhere you can't follow, but it could probably be better dealt with by addressing your own problems rather than creating problems for your children.
To start with, the main reason that companies "go get it" is because the alternative is having the FBI rooting around in their server room looking at everything they have trying to find the evidence they need. The FBI would love this of course because anything they find incidental to that search would be evidence they could use so long as they could legitimately have stumbled upon it during the search. Crap for both civil rights and the companies involved.
To continue, I doubt you're ever going to find a judge who will agree that a company complying with a legal search warrant is involuntary servitude. My argument was never that involuntary servitude is constitutional, merely that you're going to have a hard time getting that accepted as involuntary servitude. It'd be like arguing that while the government is permitted to collect taxes, they can't make you pay them or make your bank retrieve them or grant them access to retrieve them themselves because that would be involuntary servitude.
A lot of people love to make judicial leaps like this, interpreting the constitution the way they feel it should be, oddly enough they're often the same people who scream about abuse of the interstate commerce clause and are otherwise strict in their interpretation of the constitution. Under our constitution as it currently stands, it doesn't matter a pair of fetid dingoes kidneys what you think is unconstitutional, no matter how thoroughly you can back it up. It doesn't even actually matter if Congress passes a law that is directly contradicted by the constitution. The supreme court is the final and ultimate arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, if they've decided something is acceptable, it is, if they've decided something isn't, it isn't. If they haven't decided anything it's up in the air. I know that's hard to take but your opinion and my opinion doesn't actually matter, it's a handful of people in robes, most of whom are political appointments.
Except bimbo isn't the same meaning as dick. You can call a woman a dick and everyone will know what you mean. The fact that you'd never use that word to describe a man and that there in fact is no male equivalent to the word is why it's sexist. We don't ever ascribe bimbo to men despite the fact that plenty of men would actually fit the definition, pretty much anyone on the Jersey Shore for example. We don't use it though, we don't say men are vain and vapid and unfit for their positions as leaders, we especially don't ever say it about men who have earned their way to leadership positions and actually been quite successful in those positions. No one would ever call Bill Gates or Steve Jobs a bimbo. They wouldn't even call Steve Balmer a bimbo.
Think about that for a minute. Every single one of those CEO's caved to exactly the same requests, some without actually fighting it as much as she has, but it's the blonde woman we call a bimbo. It's sexist, it's unacceptable and personally I'm tired of it.
Let me clarify.
The only person the government should tell about a warrant is the subject of that warrant. They should have full access to that warrant and any evidence supporting it immediately upon being charged and be at least notified that a warrant has been served if no charges are laid. The subject of the warrant should then have the right to tell anyone they damned feel like about that warrant and the evidence supporting it. Note btw that Yahoo is not the subject of the warrant, they should be able to report some aggregate warrant related statistics, but they should not be able to report the details of any specific warrant or the evidence supporting it with the exception of the subject of the warrant as specified above.
That doesn't mean that yahoo shouldn't be able to say how many warrants they are receiving in aggregate, or how they are responding to those warrants, or whether most of these warrants are targeted or fishing expeditions. They should be able to do so.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Yes the US government can require you to turn something over if they have proof that you have it, as can any damned government and if they have a legal warrant for it. This goes doubly so for service providers like Yahoo. The fact that they can do this does not make you a slave, nor does it punish you with servitude or any fucking thing else you want to misinterpret.
Bullshit like this is why we have no god damned rights anymore, because whenever anyone tries to have a discussion about what's actually going on we get this kind of crap. If I hear one more idiot spout off about how the government is enslaving them, I'm going to lose it. LEARN YOUR GOD DAMNED FUCKING RIGHTS THE ONES YOU ACTUALLY HAVE AND WHICH MILLIONS HAVE DIED TO PROTECT. IF YOU SPENT HALF THE ENERGY YOU DO SPOUTING BULLSHIT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS YOU ACTUALLY HAVE PRISM WOULDN'T EXIST
I know that. I said he isn't a traitor. The number of reasons why he isn't a traitor are numerous and extensive, though in actuality the fact that he's not an American is not one of the top 10 as if he actually qualified as a traitor in the US he'd qualify as a traitor to Australia the country he is actually a citizen of.
I'm not saying that in every case denying that warrant is treason. I'm not saying that she's get convicted. Assange is certainly not a traitor, Snowden may or may not be, but not because he revealed the information.
My point is that IF a warrant is issued to collect information on an actual enemy of the US, and IF that warrant is not legally complied with a case could be made that the person refusing to comply with that warrant is aiding an enemy of the US. Aiding an enemy of the US is, per the constitution, treason.
The warrants shouldn't be public. No warrants should actually be public. That's a horrendous breach of the privacy of the subject of the warrant. Imagine you get searched for kiddie porn and they don't find anything, releasing that warrant to the public would damage you horribly.
The subject should have a right to see the warrant and the evidence used to issue it. We should know how many warrants are being filed, but never what they're actually for.
Several million years of human history show that people very rarely take consequences for things they don't have to, but if you feel like being scientific go ahead, ask as many people as you like, find one who says they'd do otherwise.
Heck I'll ask right here, is there one single person reading this who would leave the evidence for the cops to show up and find if they got notice they were coming?
Nope, read the clause again.
Going to war against the US as a US citizen is treason, but so is aiding enemies of the US. A war is not required to have an enemy, and it's not by any means a stretch to say that Osama bin Laden for instance was an enemy.
Aside from the fact that the initial compliance was probably done under the watch of her predecessor, what she has is a bunch of lawyers who will tell her that if she attempts to challenge a court order she will spend millions and almost certainly lose. She could actually potentially be charged with Treason, though it is unlikely. The section you have referenced states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort". It's not a stretch to say that actual terrorists are enemies of this country or that protecting them from prosecution by refusing to comply with a legal court order would be providing them aid and comfort. She'd probably win that case, but the clause doesn't say what you think it does.
Do we really have to go here?
If someone called me up and said "hey we've got a warrant to look for ______ we'll be round in half an hour" ______ would not be found in my home when they got there. I'm absolutely 100% sure that the same would be true of you and almost every single other person in this world. Anyone who didn't do that may as well say "I'll save you the trouble officer, I have _________ in my home, I'll pop round so you can arrest me". That's human nature.
Do I necessarily agree with FISA warrants, no, they're a rubber stamp and far too much about them is secret. At minimum we should have an idea how many are being served and persons who are charged based on evidence obtained under them should have access to the evidence used to apply for them.
That said, claiming that people won't dispose of evidence if given the opportunity to do so is idiotc.
I think she believes that she, or her employees might face jail time if they refused to comply with a court order. At the very least there would be significant financial penalties for her company resulting in the loss of many jobs.
I also have no doubt that "Treason" was the word used by the people who came to see her or her predecessor(she hasn't actually been in the role that long).
I would also like to take this time to state that I am sick and god damned tired of sexist trolls like yourself using terms like "bimbo" because you disagree with what someone has said. Grow the fuck up.
Asking for a ridiculous salary would make her unqualified for the job, but that's not what happened.
The plaintiff doesn't have to do anything of the sort. The plaintiff doesn't even have to prove that she is more qualified than the person they ultimately hired, merely that she was qualified for the position. H1B and the like require you to hire locally if possible first.
The talent your friend has isn't actually hitting a ball with a piece of wood, it's probably a combination of spatial awareness and coordination. He or she is probably also really good at a number of things which involve knowing where something is going to be and knowing how to put something else where you want it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/22/edward-snowden-us-china