http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/25529677

The 4th amendment is not absolute? Isn't that kind of the point of it?

It's okay to rule this way because people knowingly/unknowingly allow their privacy to be victimized by ruthless multinationals?



I give up. I guess I must place faith in the appeals process.

In the name of national security, we're going to treat all citizens like enemies of the state. Nice one, America.

Suddenly we wacko, right-wing wackos don't look so wacko anymore.

I can't get the article to load.

"He also noted: "Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. "

wow.... That's relevant.. Was this judge at occupy wall street..

(12-27-2013 03:15 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  "He also noted: "Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. "

wow.... That's relevant.. Was this judge at occupy wall street..

His ruling would likely be the opposite of what the OWS crowd would want. Or close to it anyhow.

The whole reason he has that judicial post is to protect a (frankly) dumb/defenseless public from themselves. Using their own ignorance/laziness/stupidity against them in direct violation of express wording in the constitution is like a soldier abandoning his post, cause, screw it. "who cares?"

I think the article is mischaracterizing the Judge's rationale.

I'd have to agree that it is "fundamental, but not absolute." That's just a truism.

In regard to the NSA spying, the same people who are pro gay marriage under the guise that it doesn't affect them should apply that same standard to themselves as they probably won't be spied upon.

(12-27-2013 03:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think the article is mischaracterizing the Judge's rationale.

I'd have to agree that it is "fundamental, but not absolute." That's just a truism.

Well I think he could have worded it a hell of a lot better than that and Judges have a responsibility to be clear...

It should be a fundamental right that without due process you can not be snooped on.

(12-27-2013 04:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In regard to the NSA spying, the same people who are pro gay marriage under the guise that it doesn't affect them should apply that same standard to themselves as they probably won't be spied upon.

Can I get that in writing, signed, witnessed and notarized?

(12-27-2013 04:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In regard to the NSA spying, the same people who are pro gay marriage under the guise that it doesn't affect them should apply that same standard to themselves as they probably won't be spied upon.

I know I won't be forced to marry my neighbor Bill, but there is no guarantee I won't be spied on. I was dead set against the Patriot Act because I knew the expanded powers would never go away.

(12-27-2013 04:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In regard to the NSA spying, the same people who are pro gay marriage under the guise that it doesn't affect them should apply that same standard to themselves as they probably won't be spied upon.

That is a stupid argument. You repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it valid. The basis is harm. Gay marriage doesnt hurt anyone. Spying hurts everyone.

On an unrelated note, I am getting kind of annoyed that my signature will not show up despite checking off the option in my control panel.

My sig:
-----------------

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

(12-27-2013 04:28 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 03:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think the article is mischaracterizing the Judge's rationale.

I'd have to agree that it is "fundamental, but not absolute." That's just a truism.

Well I think he could have worded it a hell of a lot better than that and Judges have a responsibility to be clear...

It should be a fundamental right that without due process you can not be snooped on.

General warrants are the issue when it comes to due process - as they were not sufficient (rather they were overbroad and not specific enough) per the 4th amendment and many subsequent rulings on the issue. The FISA court (FICR? I forget the acronym), keeps trying to sidestep that issue. I've lost track of their more recent attempts.

(12-27-2013 03:15 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  "He also noted: "Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. "

The mental gymnastics statists engage in. Key word here is "voluntarily." This is like saying if you've ever had consensual sex before, it's okay for the gov't to rape you.

(12-27-2013 04:44 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 03:15 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  "He also noted: "Every day, people voluntarily surrender personal and seemingly-private information to trans-national corporations, which exploit that data for profit. "

The mental gymnastics statists engage in. Key word here is "voluntarily." This is like saying if you've ever had consensual sex before, it's okay for the gov't to rape you.

I'm not even going to go into detail on the issue of consent when it comes to multinationals raping peoples' privacy. That's just too big of a tangent. Suffice to say, the idea that there is actual informed consent given by the public, and a lack of coercion or unfair dealings...

Yeah. I'm already starting. Back on topic.

(12-27-2013 04:40 PM)Artifice Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 04:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In regard to the NSA spying, the same people who are pro gay marriage under the guise that it doesn't affect them should apply that same standard to themselves as they probably won't be spied upon.

That is a stupid argument. You repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it valid. The basis is harm. Gay marriage doesnt hurt anyone. Spying hurts everyone.

On an unrelated note, I am getting kind of annoyed that my signature will not show up despite checking off the option in my control panel.

OK, I'll play devil's advocate here - who does spying hurt? Give me a name.

And saying my argument is stupid doesn't make it so. It just means you have no logical response to it. And "ad nauseum?" I've made that argument a total of three times and it pretty much can be applied to just about everything on this board.

(12-27-2013 04:35 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 04:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In regard to the NSA spying, the same people who are pro gay marriage under the guise that it doesn't affect them should apply that same standard to themselves as they probably won't be spied upon.

I know I won't be forced to marry my neighbor Bill, but there is no guarantee I won't be spied on. I was dead set against the Patriot Act because I knew the expanded powers would never go away.

Do you really, really know that? You're already paying for his health insurance - or he's paying for yours.

(12-27-2013 04:31 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 04:27 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  In regard to the NSA spying, the same people who are pro gay marriage under the guise that it doesn't affect them should apply that same standard to themselves as they probably won't be spied upon.

Can I get that in writing, signed, witnessed and notarized?

Sure, we can tack in on to the end of the document that says traditional marriage won't ever suffer or change because of gay marriage. And before you say "What changed?" we've already seen marriage licenses change the names on the form from Bride and Groom to Person A and Person B.

I am not Person A or B, I am the groom.

The DC circuit is right there with the 9th circuit in terms of being full of statists.

I'd hope to see better in other circuits to force this to the SCOTUS.

Also, I'd like to add, legality is a red herring here. The most heinous crimes ever committed throughout history by governments were all legal. The question is ... is it moral? Is it right? Is it responsible? Is it justified? The answer to them all is an emphatic NO.

As usual the gov't has gone too far. When the patriot act was passed if anyone had even suggested that all digital communications would be recorded allowing secret access by a rubber stamp secret court, the Act never would have made it out of committee. Liberals go head over heals for this big gov't control crap. They have gone too damn far. As predicted.