You don't understand the automated monitoring. Your counterexample is flawed. The whole point of the automation is that no person cacn have access to your info, but that by submitting all the info (in aggregate) to a filter you allow the computer to help locate probable cause w/out violating privacy.
So here's the example that fits better. There are terrorists plotting to blow up New York (let's say). Instead of breaking down doors one at a time to search for their hideout (the warrantless solution) there's a way to automatically scan all of the buildings in aggregate for bomb-making materials. This is done automatically - no human has any idea what the materials are detected in individual living units. But a threshold is set. If the scan detects an apartment that has greater than a given amount of TNT (or whatever - the material and threshold quantity can be set with congressional oversight) then you have probable cause you get a warrant and only THEN do police officers break down the door and find out if the probable cause pays out or not.
I agree that it sucks when a criminal gets off on a technicality, but I'm sure the framers thought of that possiblitity and believed it was better to let a guilty man go than allow the violation of an innocent man's rights.
This kind of thinking is dangerous is wrong not because your conclusion is wrong but because your entire method of thinking is wrong. The problem is that this is not an either/or proposition. The definition of gov't involves taking away the rights of innocent men to protect them. That's what gov't IS. The only question is where to draw the line.
To your second point, terrorists killing thousands... well the Crusades had a pretty high body count too, and interestingly enough, the framers themselves were called terrorists as well, as much of the fighting was done using gurella techniques.
Are you saying that terrorism is just a label? I mean - they call Charles Manson a murderer. If I call you a murderer too does that prove anything? Anything at all? The framers were not terrorists. Guirella warfare is not terrorism. And the Crusaders weren't terrorists either. Neither were the Nazi's. "Terrorist" is not another word for "mean people". So I'm really just not sure where you're going with all of this.
Anyway in the final analysis it's just not very meaningful for you to say that you think protecting rights is of great importance. I do too. The question isn't going to be solved by blanket assertions like "we can't give up freedom for safety". We already have - it's called gov't. It's not going to be solved by making weird rhetorical connections that have no understandable logical content.
What we need to do is establish whether the wiretapping was, in fact illegal. Then we need to determine if it SHOULD have been illegal - some laws are not worth respecting (eg law forcing northerners to return escaped slaves). Of course it's hard to define what should or should not be illegal and the ultimate appeal should be to the Constitution. It's just not clear to me at all that the wiretapping is unconstitutional - especially keeping in mind that due process can be suspended or abridged legally in times of war or emergency.
As for the automated data - this is how it works (in my theory). That automated system is put in place and fed tons of data. It only spits out those individuals who fit the heuristics. This establishes probable cause without violating privacy. Then you use that probable cause (with or without warrant) to read the calls of the targetted individuals.
Of course, you need to get oversight of the design and implementation of the heuristic algorithms. But that's the theory.
As for "why doesn't the NSA just get the warrants" I have two responses. My gut reaction is that I hate it when the bad guys get away on a warrant technicality. In general I'm more worried about that then about my own privacy being violated. And that's when the bad guys in question are maybe murders, rapists or thieves - not terrorists trying to take out entire buildings/monumemnts/cities.
But that guy reaction doesn't cut it. You have to draw the line somewhere, and innocent until proven guilty is our cherished tradition that needs respect. But you add that getting a warrant "doesn't add an unreasonable burden" - and I think that's what it all hinges on.
If I'm convinced that there was no unreasonable burden - then I'm with you. But what I believe is that getting those warrants WAS proving to be an "unreasonable burden".
The truth of that may never come out, or it may come out during the hearings.
I disagree that it doesn't matter if an algorithm or a person is doing the monitoring. It's not clear to me that it's an invasion of privacy unless some PERSON has access to the info.
As far as the scam thing goes - you say it would be bad investigation to check out every contact of the scammer, but the only reason you give is efficiency. So that's not a very good example to apply to our argument, because to my knowledge the NSA has pleny of spare resources to monitor extra calls. It's what they do.
Regarding state's ability to investigate vs. individual right to due process and privacy I'm not really sure why you're even bringing this up. That's like reminding me in a discussion about taxes that it's not just about money the gov't gets - it's also about people paying the money. Well duh - otherwise we wouldn't be talking.
Do people actually still READ threads for articles this old?
1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: "It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them" (Paul Craig Roberts).
2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
3. To give evidence of; indicate: "Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent" (Isaac Asimov).
4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.
I realize that "apologist" is not in everyone's everyday language - but I thought argue would be. Sorry for taking that leap without quoting the dictionary to you. I won't make that mistake again.
The rest of my argument is about as reasonable as this, albeit I admit I can't quote a dictionary to show you why your pathetic victimhood is self-imposed
Before anyone makes clever comments - I'm aware Budapest is in Hungary and not China. I was starting to make a list of oppressed countries but finished before I added anymore.
An apologist is someone who uses reason to defend a position. Even if I disagree with that position - I would respect the apologist nonetheless.
The phrase "quit being a victim" is utterly different. If I'm telling someone (you) not to be a victim, it applies that you have control over being a victim or not. If someone chooses to abdicate power and responsibility over something they could otherwise control and become a victim than I don't respect them - regardless of what it is they are pretending has victimized them.
So when I tell you to quit being a victim I'm telling you to quit doing something I respect under no circumstances. And when you tell me to quit being an apologist you're telling me to stop doing something that is worthy under all circumstances.
I'm sorry - did you think that this was somehow clever?
Which leads us back to your point: People no longer have the power. The fault lies with those who, over the intervening generations since the revolution, let it go. They are not us.
I call big fat stinkin BS on this. What power do we not have? There is nothing COMPELLING us to (as I pointed out) all stop paying taxes and bring the gov't to its knees in one day. Nothing whatsover. There is no gestapo. There is no secret police. There are no concentration camps. There are no gulags. The military is still independent from the political leadership of the country. If this is your definition of an oppressed society you are mockery to any rebel who gave his life fighting real oppression.
You want real oppression go to China. I've stood in Budapest and looked at the bullet holes riddling the parliment building - left as a monument to the crushed 1956 Revolution. You and anyone else who says we live in a police state is just another elitist spoiled brat without the guts to shut up or put up. The fact of the matter is you can write any damn thing you please on the internet about how you hate the US, the US sucks, we're not free, and guess what - no one will knock at your door tonight and take you away.
I'm sick of hearing pansy crap like this. You don't know what oppression is and you have no right to put off the responsbility for our present state on past generations.
The one bright spot to all this is that I don't have to fear that people with our sentiment will actually get anything done. While you're still whining about how powerless you are people who are a little less self-victimized will be able to keep the country running and maybe make some improvements - just as they have throughout history.
I have no respect for your whining protestations of powerlessness. One person and one voice with conviction can be powerful. You are powerless because you say you are - period.
apologist n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. [dictionary.com]
Note that the definition includes defense of ANY doctrine, ANY policy, or ANY institution. So, let me get this straight - you want me to stop arguing in defense. Not of anything in particular - but just in general. Riiight... maybe you should get a dictionary before you use words you clearly do not understand.
And since you're having trouble grasping my point I'll simplify it for you. It's not quixotic to think people have the power to change government. They do. It is quixotic to think that tomorrow everyone would just up and simultaneously stop paying taxes. They won't. Why is this hard for you to understand?
I'm making two points:
1 - People have the power and thus responsibility over gov't. If it's systematically messed up it's our fault. 2 - Although people have the power to change gov't, they also have a long history of apathy and laziness to overcome before they start actually using that power. It's not contradictory to emphatically state "people have the capacity to do A" while also maintaining "but they will probably not do A tomorrow". Especially when "stop paying taxes" isn't my idea of an actual positive change in gov't - just a random example of the capacity we have to control our gov't.
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.
There are privacy issues that I don't think are covered here. Mostly it relates to the fact that a person's papers and effects are protected, but papers or effects that belong to another but relate to that person are not effected.
So if a company keeps records of transactions with you - which they have the right to do - that information is not really a violation of privacy. But if the gov't - or any entity - comes along and collects it all then they can learn all kinds of things about you. And I don't think you can stretch the 4th ammendment out to cover reconstituting individually innocuous facts into an invasive breach of person (it's obviously not a breach of your effects or papers - the documents aren't yours). It's not that on principle this isn't a breach of privacy it's that it becomes impossible - or very difficult - to start defining what level of data collation may be allowable.
What is privacy - you ask. I think that's the heart of the issue. A dictionary definition is one thing, but we need a much, much more thorough understanding of what privacy is in the legal sense. I am sure there is a lot of literature on the topic but I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I don't know what it is. Furthermore, as long as the privacy issue is based on extensions of non-implicit statutes it's removed from the arena of public discourse and firmly ensconces as a specialist discussion.
Privacy should not be an opinion that depnds on interpreting layers of precedent and implication of precedent - it should be an issue for public debate and input. Hence, my call for an ammendment to clarify just what we mean by privacy (and therefore a debate to come to a decision on that matter). Not just as a pat definition, but in terms of the implications that any such definition will have given our present society and foreseeable changes therein.
1. I'm not saying you wouldn't die for liberty. I was pulling the rug out from underneath your stance as being the one who would die for liberty as opposed to me. You have to understand - I'm in favor of liberty and I'm in favor of rule by law. This is a thread started by a topic regarding NSA wiretapping. I consider that NSA wiretapping NOT to impinge on civil liberties AND to be within the context of rule by law. It's not a thread about the Patriot Act and/or the war in Iraq - you shouldn't assume my endorsement of any one automatically implies endorsement of the othe rtwo.
2. It's not terrorism if we don't let it terrorize us.
True in theory, but a lot easier for us to say in America than for people who live with it everyday to say. There's a big difference between a drive-by shooting and a suicide bomber who looks for crowds to blow himself up in. Theoretically we could just refuse to be intimidated - but regardless of how we feel about it I think the right action is to fight against it.
We prevent what we can with the lawful methods we have in place, bring them to justice when we can, and suck it up when we can't. Period.
This seems incredibly naive to me. When the state prosecutes a criminal it relies on rule of law for two reasons: 1 - there are always criminals (so abandoning rule of law to go after criminials means abandoning laws period) 2 - criminals have no power to overthrow the gov't at large.
But in war "rule by law" changes. It's still rule by law, the constitution still holds - but the laws are different and the specific available powers can change. You make it sound like we need to prosecute terrorists. I disagree - I think we need to fight terrorists. You can easily apply traditional anti-crime laws but they will be ineffectual. Applying war standards is tricky - but we need to figure out how to do that and do it. I don't think we have correctly done that so far, but going back to law-enforcement to fight terrorism is simply unacceptable and unnecessary. A foreign enemy (that may have some native agents) wants us dead, why treat it like a domestic or international crime syndicate?
3. My bads. Bad habit of me not to remember all the names of people I'm debating with at once.
4. Yikes - I've been called Bill O'Reilley - *shudder*. Look, it's not like we ever intended to stay there forever. I mean, conspiracy theorists might suppose that we did, but it was always the stated mission: go in, topple Saddam, set up new gov't, withdraw as they gain self-sufficiency.
So the fact that we're announcing likely troop reductions means one of two things: Iraqi's are genuinely standing up to take over security or popular pressure is forcing Bush's hand. When I say "we shouldn't pull out" I don't mean ever - I just mean before Iraq can stand alone.
Look, WMD was always a "straw that broke the camels back". Would WMD have been enough to invade Iraq if Saddam hadn't been a ruthless dictator who liked to murder and rape his own people while he took pot shots at American fighters? No. But did the neo-cons want an excuse to invade Iraq and "finish the job"? They certainly did. So was the whole WMD thing a bit of a front? It certainly was. I'm not a Bush advocate, I can see the truth as clearly as anyone.
But the idea that the war was for oil is simplistic - although partially true. Bush didn't invade for revenge on the plot to kill his father, he invaded because all of his closest advisors are hard-line neo-cons. Neo-con philosphy involves proactive use of force to "fix" internationl problems (as opposed to the more isolationist tendencies of traditional conservatives). Iraq was seen as a perfect pet project. There was really no way to screw the country up worse than it was screwed up (they thought - turns out we managed to do it anyway) and if it could be turned into a modern, secular democracy/republic it would become a beacon of stability in the Middle East. It's actually an extremely bungled attempt to emp
1. "if you're not willing to die..." blah blah blah.
Look, in real life we trade freedom for safety. That's pretty much the definition of gov't. It sounds nice to make sweeping pronouncements about dying for freedom, but in practice you're probably not any more against rule by law than I am. So quit acting like there's some qualitative difference between the two of us. It's just a question of where to draw the line. And I will never trust someone to draw the line that thinks there is no line - which is what cute quotes like that reveal about you.
2. because of terrorism. Hamas is actually a very good organization - except when they blow stuff up. Isreal is a reasonably free country - except when it comes to try and stop aforementioned Hamas from blowing stuff up. So yeah - I'd say it comes down to terrorism screwing stuff up.
3. Please don't get me started on quality of life issues. Look - you made it seem like all that determined seriousness was the body count. I proved that's not true. It's impressive mental judo to act like that was your position all along, but you were the one that used body count as an indicator of seriouosness to begin with, not me.
And if you think we can defend ourselves from terrorist nations by showing "we are not an evil empire" than you'd do more good selling them somem of what your smoking than anything else. Look, PART of what we need to do is admit past mistakes, try to correct them, and do more outreach to moderate Muslims. But we have to do that in a context of strength. This isn't about machismo. It's the same principle as negotiating with hostage takers. Once you do it once you may save one life but you endanger hundreds more by sending the message "taking hostages works on us".
For the same reason Vietnam is an utter disaster. We demonstrated "if our media shows pictures of dead Americans, we'll quit even if we're winning". Same thing happening in Iraq now. Regardless of whether we should have gone in or not, the divisiveness at home fuels terrorism more than any past foreign policy mistakes. Because terrorists don't really need motives for what they do, but they do need to believe it works or they'll try something else. Displaying weakness to a predator is just stupid. This is something liberals either don't get - or would rather ignore for short-term partisan gain.
1 - You're nitpicking. All I'm saying is it doesn't rise to the standard of proving guilt. That's the point.
2 - You can't always wait around for a judge. And sometimes for secrecy reasons it easier not to. It's that simple. In regular times - go with a judge, in emergencies maybe not.
But in general I totally agree - there should be oversight. And unless I'm mistaken there WAS congressional oversite of the NSA taps. I don't want the FBI/NSA/CIA running amok with utterly no oversite anymore than you do.
That's not quixotic - that's common sense. If we all stopped paying taxes tomorrow what would the government do? But us all in jail? Shoot us all? If we wanted to we could make the gov't do anything we chose.
Now it would be quixotic to think that we could actually all agree to stop paying taxes tomorrow, but it's not quixotic to point that the power is ours whether we use it or not.
Your whole "most citizens don't have time or resources" is bs. If they cared, they would make time (with a few very rare exceptions like invalids).
What it comes down to is this: certain OTHER rights in the Constitution provide indirectly a measure of privacy. Eg the ones you listed. But the right to a secure home is the right to a secure home. If a byproduct of that is privacy that doesn't mean that privacy itself is covered - just that some other rights give us privacy.
And so I reiterate - privacy itself is not a right explicitly or directly afforded to US citizens by the Constitution.
I'm confused, if according to you it's common sense that there are wire taps, than it shouldn't matter if they are public or not - everyone knows about them. Judging by the outcry, however, a lot of people thought that American citizens were off limits. Meaning the terrorist may have had a false sense of security. Now they don't. That's the problem I see with it.
Personally, I think we need more ass-kickings to develop a thicker skin.
Not all violence is bad. Some violence is just human agression. If you take away weapons and beer than a good brawl is just a health male way of discussing issues.
Forbidding all violence as though there's no different between a round of fisticuffs and assault is part of the sissification of America.
Sticks and stones leave bruises, but those heal just fine. Words - no words are something to die for.
I'll put it simply: there's no explicit right to privacy in the constitution. Privacy is protected via due process and private property. Until recent decades, that was enough. Now, however, there are ways to get at private information from publicly available data, and so perhaps an explicit right to privacy is required.
Ammendment IX, on the other hand, can not be used as evidence for a right to privacy. It makes room for the possibility that such a right exists, but you can't seriously say that we can just make up any right we want and then say "by Ammendment IX it's in the constitution!" Ammendment IX doesn't give any explicit rights - it just says "in case we forgot something it might still be a right". It kept the Constitution from being exclusive, but didn't actually add anything of itself.
So contrary to what you say it makes all the sense in the world for a strict constructionalist (which Jefferson himself was) to say "there's no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution". That's not hypocritical - that's merely stating the obvious.
Whether or not there's a non-explicit right to privacy is up for grabs and legal interpretation. In my opinion there is, but it's time to address the issue with an explicit ammendment - just as an explicit ammendment was needed to grant women the right to vote. Ammendment IX didn't help out a ton in that case either.
Awesome reply, I really appreciate it. Someone mod this guy up.
I guess I'm sorry if I came across as just shrugging my shoulders, but this is exactly what I wanted to happen. Once we clarify the issue of privacy - and why it is disappearing - we can have good discussion about what to do about it. Frankly, I didn't have any good ideas but I was pretty damn sure we needed to clear the air first. So that's what I tried to do and now you've provided some excellent suggestions on ways to secure privacy.
1 - I agree that this is problem. Are you imagining a kind of point-of-transfer model? As in, whenver a company takes your personaly info they have to say - at that time - this is what we're doing? When can we refuse? Credit card companies shouldn't be obligated to provide service if we don't allow them to track what we do, but at the same time I'd be ticked if Home Deopt woudln't sell me something (or charged a diff price) for me refusing to give my home phone out.
2 - I agree with this with the standard "except in times of crisis". Lincoln suspended habeous corpus. If he hadn't, the nation might not have survived. Would your proposed ammendment include such an exception?
Finally, what about an ammendment to include a right to privacy - with definition - in the constitution? I think the right doesn't exist currently (despite what some say) and would like to see it ammended to include the right. What do you think?
First of all the constitution doesn't contain an explicit right to privacy. Even Justice Roberts agrees that it does contain a right to privacy in some sense, but as Alito pointed out in the hearing, the right to privacy is not on the same standing as other rights that are explicitly stated. The word privacy does not appear in the Constitution. The basis for privacy in Roe v Wade is absurd (and I'm NOT making a point about abortion, you can be pro-choice and still disagree with the basis for that decision). If a right to privcay exists it's an implied or other offshoot of other rights and ammendments.
As for your specific example, I'm not going to spend too much time on that. But here's what I think: until now we have lived with inequities in our law because they were unavoidable. You could not universally inforce red light laws - at least not practically. Now, however, with a camera you can.
People get mad at these because our fundamental understanding of misdemeanor type laws (like traffic violations) has been that the law can not prevent us from driving 90 MPH on the highway. It can only provide a framework for discouragement because if you do you run the risk of getting caught. But you might not.
So laws designed in this framework suddenly become onerous when they can be universally implied. If we all got speeding tickets whenever we went 1 MPH over posted limit - or even 6 (to honor the mythical 5 MPH buffer) we'd be up in arms. And if the gov't tried to plant monitors in all our vehicles - we'd be outraged.
But this is despite the fact that driving over the speed limit is illegal according to our elected gov't officials and that a cop has every right to determine how fast you're driving if he sees you and give you a ticket.
The crucial point is that "if he sees you". Our laws were designed to be broken - and when they can be universally applied we will want new laws. The problem, in my opinion, is not with privacy but with the fact that our laws were meant to be overly harsh to individuals because they weren't universally applied.
The excpected cost of speeding is the chance of being caught times the price of the ticket. To dissuade people from speeding you have to increase the cost a lot (since the chance of getting caught is relatively slim per minute driving above the limit). But if suddenly chance of getting caught rises to certainty than the expected cost of speeding (for the same fine) shoots through the roof.
Instead of worrying about the privacy implications I'm all in favor of a (GPS -disabled) device that monitors speed and applies a small fine for minor infractions and letting cops only pull people over who engage in reckless driving. In principle - this is fine (the fact that the information could be used to determine where you travel is the problem - the state has every right to know how fast you are going on its roads).
Returning to the right to privacy, however, I think it's tragic that we essentially invented one inside the Consitution. The fact is that it's really not there. And that's why no one knows what it really means. If we hadn't invented one but had realized "hmm... privacy is an issue to us in ways it never was to the founding fathers" we could have had the opportunity for a national debate to ammend the constitution with an actual concrete definition of a right to privacy. The invented right to privacy has thrown privacy issues decades back because we're trying to make an iron rod out of cooked spaghetti.
Not so simple. WE, as in you, I and the general public do not know whether or not he's guilty. And there is no way for us to know wheher or not the detainee in question is without blowing up our own intel.
This isn't just about "I don't want to give away secrets". It's about risking the lives of the few informants and covert operatives we do have. Not only could we lose the lives of Americans and allies in the process, we also lose the chance to get more informants down the road. In order for our intelligence ops to be successful, we can NOT know about them.
We can't just put on trial the detainees. They'd either be let free from lack of evidence, or we'd cripple our own side by revealing what we know. So what do we do?
We have to either make the choice to trust our gov't, or we have to decide that our gov't is more dangerous that the terrorists. Personally, I don't like trusting the gov't but to some extent we have no choice. The question is just where to draw the line.
For me, the NSA case is WAY on the "acceptable" side of the line. It should never have been revealed to the public, the man who did is a traitor (whether he meant to be or not) and it's damaging to the efforts of our men and women in the armed and covered forces to protect this country. This is not a case of rounding up citizens of japenese descent and locking them away - it's a case of monitoring people who fit suspicious behavior to protect this nation.
Sheesh, people are such lazy thinkers. If you'd read my whole post you'd know none of this really applies to me.
Your example of wanting a car that doesn't pollute is EXACTLY what I'm advocating. But first you have to know what it is about cars that pollutes and acknowledge that - as things are now - they are going to pollute. It's only after we thoroughly explore the connection between cars and pollution (in the context of american society, infrastructure, and economy) that we can make actual suggestions about getting more enviro-friendly cars.
It's the difference between going "I wish cars didn't pollute!" and actually studying why we need cars, how they pollute, and being able to come up with actual solutions. And also realizing that somethings got to give. You can't have cheap cars and no pollution.
All I'm saying is we need to be realistic. Idealists who can't deal with facts don't serve their ideals very well.
You're defintion of "own" is, as I said, a very narrow one. It is therefore unusable for sweeping generalizations. That would be like me asserting the the definition of momentum is force time acceleration, and then applying the term momentum to the "momentum of a business". You can't have it both ways. Of course, you seem to think that I have "no basic grasp of the issues", so you aren't likely to listen to this either. But the fact is, as you may come to learn in life, sometimes having simple, pat answers doesn't mean having the right answers.
You are telling me that I do not "own" my own body. If that is the case, then what, pray tell, is my relationship to my body legally? I am not legally identified as being equivalent to my body. I have non-physical concerns, and if I lose a limb or an organ I'm not less of a person. So my identity as a person is independent from my body to some degree. So what's the relationship - if not ownership? And it's not like my body and it's organs are the only things that are mine that I can not sell. Ownership is a bigger issue than just "what I can sell/distribute".
The problem with someone who has an overly simplistic view of the world and things they are right, is there's really no way to convince them they're not. So I guess you're right about the thread, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Those phases are still largely a waste of time as long as you don't actually have to test your brand new drug against anything other than a placebo.
For all we know, the brand new, cutting edge, hot from the lab pain reliever may be less effective than whatevers already on the market.
I don't care how many of these tests they want to do. A whole load of crap is still crap.
-stormin
You don't understand the automated monitoring. Your counterexample is flawed. The whole point of the automation is that no person cacn have access to your info, but that by submitting all the info (in aggregate) to a filter you allow the computer to help locate probable cause w/out violating privacy.
So here's the example that fits better. There are terrorists plotting to blow up New York (let's say). Instead of breaking down doors one at a time to search for their hideout (the warrantless solution) there's a way to automatically scan all of the buildings in aggregate for bomb-making materials. This is done automatically - no human has any idea what the materials are detected in individual living units. But a threshold is set. If the scan detects an apartment that has greater than a given amount of TNT (or whatever - the material and threshold quantity can be set with congressional oversight) then you have probable cause you get a warrant and only THEN do police officers break down the door and find out if the probable cause pays out or not.
I agree that it sucks when a criminal gets off on a technicality, but I'm sure the framers thought of that possiblitity and believed it was better to let a guilty man go than allow the violation of an innocent man's rights.
This kind of thinking is dangerous is wrong not because your conclusion is wrong but because your entire method of thinking is wrong. The problem is that this is not an either/or proposition. The definition of gov't involves taking away the rights of innocent men to protect them. That's what gov't IS. The only question is where to draw the line.
To your second point, terrorists killing thousands... well the Crusades had a pretty high body count too, and interestingly enough, the framers themselves were called terrorists as well, as much of the fighting was done using gurella techniques.
Are you saying that terrorism is just a label? I mean - they call Charles Manson a murderer. If I call you a murderer too does that prove anything? Anything at all? The framers were not terrorists. Guirella warfare is not terrorism. And the Crusaders weren't terrorists either. Neither were the Nazi's. "Terrorist" is not another word for "mean people". So I'm really just not sure where you're going with all of this.
Anyway in the final analysis it's just not very meaningful for you to say that you think protecting rights is of great importance. I do too. The question isn't going to be solved by blanket assertions like "we can't give up freedom for safety". We already have - it's called gov't. It's not going to be solved by making weird rhetorical connections that have no understandable logical content.
What we need to do is establish whether the wiretapping was, in fact illegal. Then we need to determine if it SHOULD have been illegal - some laws are not worth respecting (eg law forcing northerners to return escaped slaves). Of course it's hard to define what should or should not be illegal and the ultimate appeal should be to the Constitution. It's just not clear to me at all that the wiretapping is unconstitutional - especially keeping in mind that due process can be suspended or abridged legally in times of war or emergency.
-stormin
As for the automated data - this is how it works (in my theory). That automated system is put in place and fed tons of data. It only spits out those individuals who fit the heuristics. This establishes probable cause without violating privacy. Then you use that probable cause (with or without warrant) to read the calls of the targetted individuals.
Of course, you need to get oversight of the design and implementation of the heuristic algorithms. But that's the theory.
As for "why doesn't the NSA just get the warrants" I have two responses. My gut reaction is that I hate it when the bad guys get away on a warrant technicality. In general I'm more worried about that then about my own privacy being violated. And that's when the bad guys in question are maybe murders, rapists or thieves - not terrorists trying to take out entire buildings/monumemnts/cities.
But that guy reaction doesn't cut it. You have to draw the line somewhere, and innocent until proven guilty is our cherished tradition that needs respect. But you add that getting a warrant "doesn't add an unreasonable burden" - and I think that's what it all hinges on.
If I'm convinced that there was no unreasonable burden - then I'm with you. But what I believe is that getting those warrants WAS proving to be an "unreasonable burden".
The truth of that may never come out, or it may come out during the hearings.
I hope we'll see.
-nathaniel
I disagree that it doesn't matter if an algorithm or a person is doing the monitoring. It's not clear to me that it's an invasion of privacy unless some PERSON has access to the info.
As far as the scam thing goes - you say it would be bad investigation to check out every contact of the scammer, but the only reason you give is efficiency. So that's not a very good example to apply to our argument, because to my knowledge the NSA has pleny of spare resources to monitor extra calls. It's what they do.
Regarding state's ability to investigate vs. individual right to due process and privacy I'm not really sure why you're even bringing this up. That's like reminding me in a discussion about taxes that it's not just about money the gov't gets - it's also about people paying the money. Well duh - otherwise we wouldn't be talking.
Do people actually still READ threads for articles this old?
-stormin
argue
v. argued, arguing, argues
v. tr.
1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate: "It is time to stop arguing tax-rate reductions and to enact them" (Paul Craig Roberts).
2. To attempt to prove by reasoning; maintain or contend: The speaker argued that more immigrants should be admitted to the country.
3. To give evidence of; indicate: "Similarities cannot always be used to argue descent" (Isaac Asimov).
4. To persuade or influence (another), as by presenting reasons: argued the clerk into lowering the price.
I realize that "apologist" is not in everyone's everyday language - but I thought argue would be. Sorry for taking that leap without quoting the dictionary to you. I won't make that mistake again.
The rest of my argument is about as reasonable as this, albeit I admit I can't quote a dictionary to show you why your pathetic victimhood is self-imposed
-stormin
Before anyone makes clever comments - I'm aware Budapest is in Hungary and not China. I was starting to make a list of oppressed countries but finished before I added anymore.
So spare me those jokes.
-stormin
An apologist is someone who uses reason to defend a position. Even if I disagree with that position - I would respect the apologist nonetheless.
The phrase "quit being a victim" is utterly different. If I'm telling someone (you) not to be a victim, it applies that you have control over being a victim or not. If someone chooses to abdicate power and responsibility over something they could otherwise control and become a victim than I don't respect them - regardless of what it is they are pretending has victimized them.
So when I tell you to quit being a victim I'm telling you to quit doing something I respect under no circumstances. And when you tell me to quit being an apologist you're telling me to stop doing something that is worthy under all circumstances.
I'm sorry - did you think that this was somehow clever?
Which leads us back to your point: People no longer have the power. The fault lies with those who, over the intervening generations since the revolution, let it go. They are not us.
I call big fat stinkin BS on this. What power do we not have? There is nothing COMPELLING us to (as I pointed out) all stop paying taxes and bring the gov't to its knees in one day. Nothing whatsover. There is no gestapo. There is no secret police. There are no concentration camps. There are no gulags. The military is still independent from the political leadership of the country. If this is your definition of an oppressed society you are mockery to any rebel who gave his life fighting real oppression.
You want real oppression go to China. I've stood in Budapest and looked at the bullet holes riddling the parliment building - left as a monument to the crushed 1956 Revolution. You and anyone else who says we live in a police state is just another elitist spoiled brat without the guts to shut up or put up. The fact of the matter is you can write any damn thing you please on the internet about how you hate the US, the US sucks, we're not free, and guess what - no one will knock at your door tonight and take you away.
I'm sick of hearing pansy crap like this. You don't know what oppression is and you have no right to put off the responsbility for our present state on past generations.
The one bright spot to all this is that I don't have to fear that people with our sentiment will actually get anything done. While you're still whining about how powerless you are people who are a little less self-victimized will be able to keep the country running and maybe make some improvements - just as they have throughout history.
I have no respect for your whining protestations of powerlessness. One person and one voice with conviction can be powerful. You are powerless because you say you are - period.
-stormin
Quit being an apologist.
apologist n. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. [dictionary.com]
Note that the definition includes defense of ANY doctrine, ANY policy, or ANY institution. So, let me get this straight - you want me to stop arguing in defense. Not of anything in particular - but just in general. Riiight... maybe you should get a dictionary before you use words you clearly do not understand.
And since you're having trouble grasping my point I'll simplify it for you. It's not quixotic to think people have the power to change government. They do. It is quixotic to think that tomorrow everyone would just up and simultaneously stop paying taxes. They won't. Why is this hard for you to understand?
I'm making two points:
1 - People have the power and thus responsibility over gov't. If it's systematically messed up it's our fault.
2 - Although people have the power to change gov't, they also have a long history of apathy and laziness to overcome before they start actually using that power. It's not contradictory to emphatically state "people have the capacity to do A" while also maintaining "but they will probably not do A tomorrow". Especially when "stop paying taxes" isn't my idea of an actual positive change in gov't - just a random example of the capacity we have to control our gov't.
Which - if any - do you disagree with?
-stormin
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.
There are privacy issues that I don't think are covered here. Mostly it relates to the fact that a person's papers and effects are protected, but papers or effects that belong to another but relate to that person are not effected.
So if a company keeps records of transactions with you - which they have the right to do - that information is not really a violation of privacy. But if the gov't - or any entity - comes along and collects it all then they can learn all kinds of things about you. And I don't think you can stretch the 4th ammendment out to cover reconstituting individually innocuous facts into an invasive breach of person (it's obviously not a breach of your effects or papers - the documents aren't yours). It's not that on principle this isn't a breach of privacy it's that it becomes impossible - or very difficult - to start defining what level of data collation may be allowable.
What is privacy - you ask. I think that's the heart of the issue. A dictionary definition is one thing, but we need a much, much more thorough understanding of what privacy is in the legal sense. I am sure there is a lot of literature on the topic but I'm not a constitutional lawyer and I don't know what it is. Furthermore, as long as the privacy issue is based on extensions of non-implicit statutes it's removed from the arena of public discourse and firmly ensconces as a specialist discussion.
Privacy should not be an opinion that depnds on interpreting layers of precedent and implication of precedent - it should be an issue for public debate and input. Hence, my call for an ammendment to clarify just what we mean by privacy (and therefore a debate to come to a decision on that matter). Not just as a pat definition, but in terms of the implications that any such definition will have given our present society and foreseeable changes therein.
-stormin
1. I'm not saying you wouldn't die for liberty. I was pulling the rug out from underneath your stance as being the one who would die for liberty as opposed to me. You have to understand - I'm in favor of liberty and I'm in favor of rule by law. This is a thread started by a topic regarding NSA wiretapping. I consider that NSA wiretapping NOT to impinge on civil liberties AND to be within the context of rule by law. It's not a thread about the Patriot Act and/or the war in Iraq - you shouldn't assume my endorsement of any one automatically implies endorsement of the othe rtwo.
2. It's not terrorism if we don't let it terrorize us.
True in theory, but a lot easier for us to say in America than for people who live with it everyday to say. There's a big difference between a drive-by shooting and a suicide bomber who looks for crowds to blow himself up in. Theoretically we could just refuse to be intimidated - but regardless of how we feel about it I think the right action is to fight against it.
We prevent what we can with the lawful methods we have in place, bring them to justice when we can, and suck it up when we can't. Period.
This seems incredibly naive to me. When the state prosecutes a criminal it relies on rule of law for two reasons: 1 - there are always criminals (so abandoning rule of law to go after criminials means abandoning laws period) 2 - criminals have no power to overthrow the gov't at large.
But in war "rule by law" changes. It's still rule by law, the constitution still holds - but the laws are different and the specific available powers can change. You make it sound like we need to prosecute terrorists. I disagree - I think we need to fight terrorists. You can easily apply traditional anti-crime laws but they will be ineffectual. Applying war standards is tricky - but we need to figure out how to do that and do it. I don't think we have correctly done that so far, but going back to law-enforcement to fight terrorism is simply unacceptable and unnecessary. A foreign enemy (that may have some native agents) wants us dead, why treat it like a domestic or international crime syndicate?
3. My bads. Bad habit of me not to remember all the names of people I'm debating with at once.
4. Yikes - I've been called Bill O'Reilley - *shudder*. Look, it's not like we ever intended to stay there forever. I mean, conspiracy theorists might suppose that we did, but it was always the stated mission: go in, topple Saddam, set up new gov't, withdraw as they gain self-sufficiency.
So the fact that we're announcing likely troop reductions means one of two things: Iraqi's are genuinely standing up to take over security or popular pressure is forcing Bush's hand. When I say "we shouldn't pull out" I don't mean ever - I just mean before Iraq can stand alone.
Look, WMD was always a "straw that broke the camels back". Would WMD have been enough to invade Iraq if Saddam hadn't been a ruthless dictator who liked to murder and rape his own people while he took pot shots at American fighters? No. But did the neo-cons want an excuse to invade Iraq and "finish the job"? They certainly did. So was the whole WMD thing a bit of a front? It certainly was. I'm not a Bush advocate, I can see the truth as clearly as anyone.
But the idea that the war was for oil is simplistic - although partially true. Bush didn't invade for revenge on the plot to kill his father, he invaded because all of his closest advisors are hard-line neo-cons. Neo-con philosphy involves proactive use of force to "fix" internationl problems (as opposed to the more isolationist tendencies of traditional conservatives). Iraq was seen as a perfect pet project. There was really no way to screw the country up worse than it was screwed up (they thought - turns out we managed to do it anyway) and if it could be turned into a modern, secular democracy/republic it would become a beacon of stability in the Middle East. It's actually an extremely bungled attempt to emp
1. "if you're not willing to die..." blah blah blah.
Look, in real life we trade freedom for safety. That's pretty much the definition of gov't. It sounds nice to make sweeping pronouncements about dying for freedom, but in practice you're probably not any more against rule by law than I am. So quit acting like there's some qualitative difference between the two of us. It's just a question of where to draw the line. And I will never trust someone to draw the line that thinks there is no line - which is what cute quotes like that reveal about you.
2. because of terrorism. Hamas is actually a very good organization - except when they blow stuff up. Isreal is a reasonably free country - except when it comes to try and stop aforementioned Hamas from blowing stuff up. So yeah - I'd say it comes down to terrorism screwing stuff up.
3. Please don't get me started on quality of life issues. Look - you made it seem like all that determined seriousness was the body count. I proved that's not true. It's impressive mental judo to act like that was your position all along, but you were the one that used body count as an indicator of seriouosness to begin with, not me.
And if you think we can defend ourselves from terrorist nations by showing "we are not an evil empire" than you'd do more good selling them somem of what your smoking than anything else. Look, PART of what we need to do is admit past mistakes, try to correct them, and do more outreach to moderate Muslims. But we have to do that in a context of strength. This isn't about machismo. It's the same principle as negotiating with hostage takers. Once you do it once you may save one life but you endanger hundreds more by sending the message "taking hostages works on us".
For the same reason Vietnam is an utter disaster. We demonstrated "if our media shows pictures of dead Americans, we'll quit even if we're winning". Same thing happening in Iraq now. Regardless of whether we should have gone in or not, the divisiveness at home fuels terrorism more than any past foreign policy mistakes. Because terrorists don't really need motives for what they do, but they do need to believe it works or they'll try something else. Displaying weakness to a predator is just stupid. This is something liberals either don't get - or would rather ignore for short-term partisan gain.
-stormin
1 - You're nitpicking. All I'm saying is it doesn't rise to the standard of proving guilt. That's the point.
2 - You can't always wait around for a judge. And sometimes for secrecy reasons it easier not to. It's that simple. In regular times - go with a judge, in emergencies maybe not.
But in general I totally agree - there should be oversight. And unless I'm mistaken there WAS congressional oversite of the NSA taps. I don't want the FBI/NSA/CIA running amok with utterly no oversite anymore than you do.
-stormin
That's not quixotic - that's common sense. If we all stopped paying taxes tomorrow what would the government do? But us all in jail? Shoot us all? If we wanted to we could make the gov't do anything we chose.
Now it would be quixotic to think that we could actually all agree to stop paying taxes tomorrow, but it's not quixotic to point that the power is ours whether we use it or not.
Your whole "most citizens don't have time or resources" is bs. If they cared, they would make time (with a few very rare exceptions like invalids).
Quit being a victim.
-stormin
Thanks for saying that for me.
What it comes down to is this: certain OTHER rights in the Constitution provide indirectly a measure of privacy. Eg the ones you listed. But the right to a secure home is the right to a secure home. If a byproduct of that is privacy that doesn't mean that privacy itself is covered - just that some other rights give us privacy.
And so I reiterate - privacy itself is not a right explicitly or directly afforded to US citizens by the Constitution.
-stormin
I'm confused, if according to you it's common sense that there are wire taps, than it shouldn't matter if they are public or not - everyone knows about them. Judging by the outcry, however, a lot of people thought that American citizens were off limits. Meaning the terrorist may have had a false sense of security. Now they don't. That's the problem I see with it.
-stormin
No offense taken. I feel the same way about you. :-)
-stormin
Personally, I think we need more ass-kickings to develop a thicker skin.
Not all violence is bad. Some violence is just human agression. If you take away weapons and beer than a good brawl is just a health male way of discussing issues.
Forbidding all violence as though there's no different between a round of fisticuffs and assault is part of the sissification of America.
Sticks and stones leave bruises, but those heal just fine. Words - no words are something to die for.
-stormin
I'll put it simply: there's no explicit right to privacy in the constitution. Privacy is protected via due process and private property. Until recent decades, that was enough. Now, however, there are ways to get at private information from publicly available data, and so perhaps an explicit right to privacy is required.
Ammendment IX, on the other hand, can not be used as evidence for a right to privacy. It makes room for the possibility that such a right exists, but you can't seriously say that we can just make up any right we want and then say "by Ammendment IX it's in the constitution!" Ammendment IX doesn't give any explicit rights - it just says "in case we forgot something it might still be a right". It kept the Constitution from being exclusive, but didn't actually add anything of itself.
So contrary to what you say it makes all the sense in the world for a strict constructionalist (which Jefferson himself was) to say "there's no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution". That's not hypocritical - that's merely stating the obvious.
Whether or not there's a non-explicit right to privacy is up for grabs and legal interpretation. In my opinion there is, but it's time to address the issue with an explicit ammendment - just as an explicit ammendment was needed to grant women the right to vote. Ammendment IX didn't help out a ton in that case either.
-stormin
I was fairly certain this is the case, and was hoping someone would show up to back me up.
This finally proves what I was saying: you can't just reduce ownership to "what I can or can not sell".
Thanks.
Awesome reply, I really appreciate it. Someone mod this guy up.
I guess I'm sorry if I came across as just shrugging my shoulders, but this is exactly what I wanted to happen. Once we clarify the issue of privacy - and why it is disappearing - we can have good discussion about what to do about it. Frankly, I didn't have any good ideas but I was pretty damn sure we needed to clear the air first. So that's what I tried to do and now you've provided some excellent suggestions on ways to secure privacy.
1 - I agree that this is problem. Are you imagining a kind of point-of-transfer model? As in, whenver a company takes your personaly info they have to say - at that time - this is what we're doing? When can we refuse? Credit card companies shouldn't be obligated to provide service if we don't allow them to track what we do, but at the same time I'd be ticked if Home Deopt woudln't sell me something (or charged a diff price) for me refusing to give my home phone out.
2 - I agree with this with the standard "except in times of crisis". Lincoln suspended habeous corpus. If he hadn't, the nation might not have survived. Would your proposed ammendment include such an exception?
Finally, what about an ammendment to include a right to privacy - with definition - in the constitution? I think the right doesn't exist currently (despite what some say) and would like to see it ammended to include the right. What do you think?
-stormin
hahahaha... now you know why the insurance biz is so boring - it didn't even occur to me that PCP meant anything but "primary care physician"
I've got to get out of this biz.
First of all the constitution doesn't contain an explicit right to privacy. Even Justice Roberts agrees that it does contain a right to privacy in some sense, but as Alito pointed out in the hearing, the right to privacy is not on the same standing as other rights that are explicitly stated. The word privacy does not appear in the Constitution. The basis for privacy in Roe v Wade is absurd (and I'm NOT making a point about abortion, you can be pro-choice and still disagree with the basis for that decision). If a right to privcay exists it's an implied or other offshoot of other rights and ammendments.
As for your specific example, I'm not going to spend too much time on that. But here's what I think: until now we have lived with inequities in our law because they were unavoidable. You could not universally inforce red light laws - at least not practically. Now, however, with a camera you can.
People get mad at these because our fundamental understanding of misdemeanor type laws (like traffic violations) has been that the law can not prevent us from driving 90 MPH on the highway. It can only provide a framework for discouragement because if you do you run the risk of getting caught. But you might not.
So laws designed in this framework suddenly become onerous when they can be universally implied. If we all got speeding tickets whenever we went 1 MPH over posted limit - or even 6 (to honor the mythical 5 MPH buffer) we'd be up in arms. And if the gov't tried to plant monitors in all our vehicles - we'd be outraged.
But this is despite the fact that driving over the speed limit is illegal according to our elected gov't officials and that a cop has every right to determine how fast you're driving if he sees you and give you a ticket.
The crucial point is that "if he sees you". Our laws were designed to be broken - and when they can be universally applied we will want new laws. The problem, in my opinion, is not with privacy but with the fact that our laws were meant to be overly harsh to individuals because they weren't universally applied.
The excpected cost of speeding is the chance of being caught times the price of the ticket. To dissuade people from speeding you have to increase the cost a lot (since the chance of getting caught is relatively slim per minute driving above the limit). But if suddenly chance of getting caught rises to certainty than the expected cost of speeding (for the same fine) shoots through the roof.
Instead of worrying about the privacy implications I'm all in favor of a (GPS -disabled) device that monitors speed and applies a small fine for minor infractions and letting cops only pull people over who engage in reckless driving. In principle - this is fine (the fact that the information could be used to determine where you travel is the problem - the state has every right to know how fast you are going on its roads).
Returning to the right to privacy, however, I think it's tragic that we essentially invented one inside the Consitution. The fact is that it's really not there. And that's why no one knows what it really means. If we hadn't invented one but had realized "hmm... privacy is an issue to us in ways it never was to the founding fathers" we could have had the opportunity for a national debate to ammend the constitution with an actual concrete definition of a right to privacy. The invented right to privacy has thrown privacy issues decades back because we're trying to make an iron rod out of cooked spaghetti.
-stormin
Not so simple. WE, as in you, I and the general public do not know whether or not he's guilty. And there is no way for us to know wheher or not the detainee in question is without blowing up our own intel.
This isn't just about "I don't want to give away secrets". It's about risking the lives of the few informants and covert operatives we do have. Not only could we lose the lives of Americans and allies in the process, we also lose the chance to get more informants down the road. In order for our intelligence ops to be successful, we can NOT know about them.
We can't just put on trial the detainees. They'd either be let free from lack of evidence, or we'd cripple our own side by revealing what we know. So what do we do?
We have to either make the choice to trust our gov't, or we have to decide that our gov't is more dangerous that the terrorists. Personally, I don't like trusting the gov't but to some extent we have no choice. The question is just where to draw the line.
For me, the NSA case is WAY on the "acceptable" side of the line. It should never have been revealed to the public, the man who did is a traitor (whether he meant to be or not) and it's damaging to the efforts of our men and women in the armed and covered forces to protect this country. This is not a case of rounding up citizens of japenese descent and locking them away - it's a case of monitoring people who fit suspicious behavior to protect this nation.
-stormin
Sheesh, people are such lazy thinkers. If you'd read my whole post you'd know none of this really applies to me.
Your example of wanting a car that doesn't pollute is EXACTLY what I'm advocating. But first you have to know what it is about cars that pollutes and acknowledge that - as things are now - they are going to pollute. It's only after we thoroughly explore the connection between cars and pollution (in the context of american society, infrastructure, and economy) that we can make actual suggestions about getting more enviro-friendly cars.
It's the difference between going "I wish cars didn't pollute!" and actually studying why we need cars, how they pollute, and being able to come up with actual solutions. And also realizing that somethings got to give. You can't have cheap cars and no pollution.
All I'm saying is we need to be realistic. Idealists who can't deal with facts don't serve their ideals very well.
-stormin
You're defintion of "own" is, as I said, a very narrow one. It is therefore unusable for sweeping generalizations. That would be like me asserting the the definition of momentum is force time acceleration, and then applying the term momentum to the "momentum of a business". You can't have it both ways. Of course, you seem to think that I have "no basic grasp of the issues", so you aren't likely to listen to this either. But the fact is, as you may come to learn in life, sometimes having simple, pat answers doesn't mean having the right answers.
You are telling me that I do not "own" my own body. If that is the case, then what, pray tell, is my relationship to my body legally? I am not legally identified as being equivalent to my body. I have non-physical concerns, and if I lose a limb or an organ I'm not less of a person. So my identity as a person is independent from my body to some degree. So what's the relationship - if not ownership? And it's not like my body and it's organs are the only things that are mine that I can not sell. Ownership is a bigger issue than just "what I can sell/distribute".
The problem with someone who has an overly simplistic view of the world and things they are right, is there's really no way to convince them they're not. So I guess you're right about the thread, anyway.
-stormin