Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mrhappyface]

That's the thing though. The internet being either public or private domain is still an issue. Until such laws are instated, it will always be scoured and sifted by law enforcement since it's a big bin of info.

[GlyphGryph]

I have no idea what you are actually trying to say with that sentence.

[Bauglir]

@Mrhappyface

And that's a problem. Because whether there's malice or not, harm is done.

[Eagleon]

That's the thing though. The internet being either public or private domain is still an issue. Until such laws are instated, it will always be scoured and sifted by law enforcement since it's a big bin of info.

This goes quite a bit beyond public data. Privacy of information has been protected since the 4th amendment was instated. It's there to stop exactly this. The implication that the internet is public data because it transmits through public services is essentially saying that what keeps the first world ticking is free game for whoever can coerce service providers the most. This is now essential infrastructure, no different than the mail or someone's filing cabinet.

No one was worried about their porn being sifted through by the police back in the 18th century (well, maybe Franklin), what they were worried about is votes being fixed, people being blackmailed into dropping out of races, and the government surrendering to a tyrant. That is still a possibility - no matter how benign you think the NSA is, there are very bad people in this world, or the NSA wouldn't exist.

[Mrhappyface]

It's a shitty loophole, but that's between the service provider and the investigator, not the user.

[Bauglir]

What does that even mean?

[SalmonGod]

I think he's saying that it's all beyond our level of input, so there's no use fussing over it.  Ignoring that that's one of the major reasons we are fussing over it.

[lue]

It's a shitty loophole, but that's between the service provider and the investigator, not the user.

Except of course the part where the user created the desired information.

On that note, could we have a 28th amendment, one that said something like:

The rights of the people shall not be limited to or excluded from certain forms of information transmission and storage.

Granted it would need quite a bit of legalwork to be airtight (including the standard "Congress can enforce this amendment" section), but it would make stuff like the NSA's programs and FISA's secret rulings allowing said programs to be promoted from A Very Bad Idea™ to a (clear and explicit) VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, which seems to get people riled up often .

[misko27]

Oh Obama, you hurt yourself so. At this point, I'd assume Snowden knows everything the NSA has ever done and plans to release it at some point, so plan accordingly and just start preempting it.

It's a shitty loophole, but that's between the service provider and the investigator, not the user.

Except of course the part where the user created the desired information.

On that note, could we have a 28th amendment, one that said something like:

The rights of the people shall not be limited to or excluded from certain forms of information transmission and storage.

Granted it would need quite a bit of legalwork to be airtight (including the standard "Congress can enforce this amendment" section), but it would make stuff like the NSA's programs and FISA's secret rulings allowing said programs to be promoted from A Very Bad Idea™ to a (clear and explicit) VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION, which seems to get people riled up often .

Oh the constitution, a document I've been learning about recently. Really interesting stuff, did you know only 6 people who signed the sweepingly reformist Declaration of Independence ("all men are created equal") also signed the constitution? And it is rather significant that the Constitution, originally, and think about this, didn't include the Bill of Rights. The original constitution didn't include protections for Speech, Arms, Religion, etc.

[SalmonGod]

The original constitution didn't include protections for Speech, Arms, Religion, etc.

hehehe... yeah... I often wonder how many people keep in mind the meaning of the term "amendment" when they are quoting them.

[GlyphGryph]

The original constitutional writers feared including them would lead people to believe those were the only rights people had, even though the government they'd outlined would be effectively incapable of abridging them if it followed the directives as written. The first congress eventually decided it was worth to risk to insure we didn't lose them all (or at least appease the anti-federalists who were worried about us losing them), and they included the 9th/10th amendments to make sure we remembered our rights weren't limited to constitutional ones.

Since the 10th amendment has essentially been completely ignored and people seem to now believe that if it's not in the constitution we don't have a right to it, I think those original fears were well-placed.

"Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can." -Jefferson writing Madison encouraging him to propose the Bill of Rights

It is interesting how it all went down, though.

[lue]

To be clear, the "amendment" I proposed was just to make what's already implied more explicit, to quell "but the Constitution doesn't say" type arguments. I'll have to remember the 10th amendment if I ever get it such an argument though.

The Bill of Rights may be a set of amendments, but from what I recall they were promised during the drafting of the Constitution, which to me takes away some of that "they didn't originally put them in there" thinking and resultant implications.

[misko27]

To be clear, the "amendment" I proposed was just to make what's already implied more explicit, to quell "but the Constitution doesn't say" type arguments. I'll have to remember the 10th amendment if I ever get it such an argument though.

The Bill of Rights may be a set of amendments, but from what I recall they were promised during the drafting of the Constitution, which to me takes away some of that "they didn't originally put them in there" thinking and resultant implications.

Ahh, but the the thing is the implications remain. They were notably anti-democratic as we understand it today, keeping power mostly to the landed class, with exceptions made for the Yeomanry. They were, after all, largely the rich and landed, heirs to the anti-monarchical spirit while simultaneously the same propertied ideals of the rich of the time. One person summed up the sentiment "Let it stand as a principle that the government originates from the people, but let the people be taught... that they are not able to govern themselves.


It's actually slightly amusing how as the forces which the feared, the "urban and rural mobs" took over, rising satisfaction and nationalism meant an increasingly idealized the guys with whom they increasingly deviated from.


But, as fun as that conversation is, it's off-topic. Anyway, what do you mean in your amendment by "limited to"? That could conceivably cause problems.

[alway]

This is a complicated issue.  People need work to support themselves and all that.  Doesn't change the fact that this stance is self-fulfilling prophecy.  And it's one we're going to have to face if we want any chance at altering the direction in which society is headed.

Fact of the matter is: not it isn't self-fulfilling; and the reason why is because your own personal causes aren't those of everyone; or even a majority; as many polls have shown.

Beyond that, your use of 'we' is rather nebulous. "We" does not include a large majority of network security majors; in a similar way that any entry-level game developer would be an idiot to turn down a good offer from Zynga, regardless of their opinions of that company. It's a case of "I could go work at the NSA for a few years, then be set for life in terms of employability, or I could be a back-alley nobody for the rest of my life." And unless the NSA personally beat your grandmother to death in front of you, that's a pretty damn easy choice to make.

[Frumple]

... again, easy doesn't mean ethical. If a person's willing to aid a predatory/malicious/unethical (pick any) company in exchange for financial stability, smart or not that says most of what needs to be said of their ethical character.

You're saying

"I could go work at the NSA for a few years, then be set for life in terms of employability, or I could be a back-alley nobody for the rest of my life[...]"

"... and so the ethics of my actions are superseded by other concerns."