5 ms·

What about the following paragraph is not clear? "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable sear

by zmblum 16y ago

What about the following paragraph is not clear? "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 Warrants shall not be issued, 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." Am I missing something? Of course the problem is that it's near impossible get something like this to the SCOTUS. The only real possibility is more whistle blowing.

rdtsc 16y ago
That is written for you to learn in 5th grade civics class and feel good about your country and your government. But is not for those printing & spending hundreds of billions of dollars.
- dustingetz 16y ago
  well, no, that was written by government leaders attempting to protect civil liberties from future government leaders. It just didn't work.
- tesseract 16y ago
  Oh? I thought it was written by a bunch of guys (these days we'd probably call them "insurgents" or somesuch) who had recently been fed up with a government that was unreasonably searching them, etc., and didn't want it to happen again.
- itistoday 16y ago
  I'm not sure why people are upvoting your comment. Actually, I do know why. It's a depressing disenchantment with government. They don't understand that government is not going anywhere, and that government can be as good as it can be bad. The quote zmblum posted is brilliant, and it is an example of what Good Government is capable of. It is not just for your 5th grade civics class. It's for RIGHT NOW. Read the quote, understand and respect it and its authors, and take action. The government is not just them, it's also you, and sitting on the sidelines being cynical is supporting them.
  - carussell 16y ago
    Tongue-in-cheek.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    They don't understand that government is not going anywhere, and that government can be as good as it can be bad. No way in hell. Where, in either the future or the history books, is the saintly leader who will counterbalance a Stalin or a Mao?
    - mrgordon 16y ago
      Gandhi?
    - pyre 16y ago
      I think the point is government that is not necessarily led by a single person. Though the president of the US is the 'leader,' he does share power with the Supreme Court and Congress. Just because everyone likes to point to the president when things go wrong doesn't mean there aren't others that share in the blame... The current problem with the system is that: 1) the Federal government has grown too large, and 2) the US is ruled by only two political parties that are both (at their core) about the status quo and not all that different from each other.
      - intended 16y ago
        May I suggest that the current US political debate is virulently polarizing and unproductive? Perhaps the issue Good Governance vs Bad Governance would be effective/useful? (as opposed to the current axis of big vs small) As was said by Deng Xiapong "it doesn't matter if the cat is white or black.."
        randallsquared 16y ago
        Joe's Good Governance is Bob's Bad Governance. People fundamentally differ on what the government should do; there's no "right answer" that everyone could agree on if only they'd sit down and discuss it reasonably.
sixtofour 16y ago
Yes, you're missing something (actually I'm sure you're not). The government has evolved to a state where they've decided they can do anything, anything they want, in the name of whatever they want to use for justification, in the rare case where they deign to justify. They're not afraid of terror or drugs, they aren't afraid of anything.
getsat 16y ago
The authors of the Federalist Papers were against a specific enumeration of rights because they feared that those would become the only rights that citizens had. They now seem prescient in retrospect.
- hammock 16y ago
  The Bill of Rights was horrible for America. It turned the Constitution from something where the people tells the government what it can and can't do, into something where the government tells people what bones they get thrown.
  - watchandwait 16y ago
    I don't think that's fair. Sure, the Constitution is in tatters but without the Bill of Rights I think we'd have lost even more freedom. At least folks have rallied around and protected some elements (guns, religious freedom, free speech to some degree).
  - thwarted 16y ago
    In some sense, the Bill of Rights could be considered a premature optimization. Rather than waste time having the people and the government come to an agreement in an agile way, through multiple iterations, on the things the first 10 amendments cover, they just decided to preempt all that debate and bill-making and bill-overturning and list the things that were off-limits. Didn't turn out that way though. And like all premature optimizations, maybe it wasn't such a good idea.
    - hammock 16y ago
      The problem with the Bill of Rights is that it refocuses grievances from "where do you, the government derive the power to do such things?" to "what fundamental citizen right is being violated in this case?" Which sounds OK but it's just wrong. The latter question is relevant in terms of inter-citizen disputes like theft, but in terms of government intervention the former is the appropriate one. Unfortunately it's usually the latter that gets asked.
rst 16y ago
It doesn't say a thing about "electronic communications". Which gives prosecutors, the FBI, and the national security state a large opportunity to blow smoke.
- tesseract 16y ago
  Difficulty of amending the US constitution is a double edged sword.
pyre 16y ago
That paragraph was written before 9/11. Everything is different now. </sarcasm>
VladRussian 16y ago
Lets look into the precedents. Modern interpretation used by courts is that automated weapons didn't exist when 2nd Amendment was written. The same way it will be with email didn't exist back then. It doesn't matter that rifles of the time were the assault weapons of the time and the meaning of "papers" of the time can be extended to email.
cjeane 16y ago
The key here is that the data is obtained via a 3rd party. Once you as an individual share any information with a 3rd party you lose any expectation of privacy. In the digital world there are specific carve outs for email, but not much else. These actions are terrible, but completely legal.
jodrellblank 16y ago
I see the bits about your house, person, papers and effects, but which part covers a datacenter?

by zmblum 16y ago

rdtsc 16y ago

That is written for you to learn in 5th grade civics class and feel good about your country and your government. But is not for those printing & spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

dustingetz 16y ago
well, no, that was written by government leaders attempting to protect civil liberties from future government leaders. It just didn't work.
tesseract 16y ago
Oh? I thought it was written by a bunch of guys (these days we'd probably call them "insurgents" or somesuch) who had recently been fed up with a government that was unreasonably searching them, etc., and didn't want it to happen again.
itistoday 16y ago
I'm not sure why people are upvoting your comment. Actually, I do know why. It's a depressing disenchantment with government. They don't understand that government is not going anywhere, and that government can be as good as it can be bad. The quote zmblum posted is brilliant, and it is an example of what Good Government is capable of. It is not just for your 5th grade civics class. It's for RIGHT NOW. Read the quote, understand and respect it and its authors, and take action. The government is not just them, it's also you, and sitting on the sidelines being cynical is supporting them.
- carussell 16y ago
  Tongue-in-cheek.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  They don't understand that government is not going anywhere, and that government can be as good as it can be bad. No way in hell. Where, in either the future or the history books, is the saintly leader who will counterbalance a Stalin or a Mao?
  - mrgordon 16y ago
    Gandhi?
  - pyre 16y ago
    I think the point is government that is not necessarily led by a single person. Though the president of the US is the 'leader,' he does share power with the Supreme Court and Congress. Just because everyone likes to point to the president when things go wrong doesn't mean there aren't others that share in the blame... The current problem with the system is that: 1) the Federal government has grown too large, and 2) the US is ruled by only two political parties that are both (at their core) about the status quo and not all that different from each other.
    - intended 16y ago
      May I suggest that the current US political debate is virulently polarizing and unproductive? Perhaps the issue Good Governance vs Bad Governance would be effective/useful? (as opposed to the current axis of big vs small) As was said by Deng Xiapong "it doesn't matter if the cat is white or black.."
      - randallsquared 16y ago
        Joe's Good Governance is Bob's Bad Governance. People fundamentally differ on what the government should do; there's no "right answer" that everyone could agree on if only they'd sit down and discuss it reasonably.

sixtofour 16y ago

Yes, you're missing something (actually I'm sure you're not). The government has evolved to a state where they've decided they can do anything, anything they want, in the name of whatever they want to use for justification, in the rare case where they deign to justify. They're not afraid of terror or drugs, they aren't afraid of anything.

getsat 16y ago

The authors of the Federalist Papers were against a specific enumeration of rights because they feared that those would become the only rights that citizens had. They now seem prescient in retrospect.

hammock 16y ago
The Bill of Rights was horrible for America. It turned the Constitution from something where the people tells the government what it can and can't do, into something where the government tells people what bones they get thrown.
- watchandwait 16y ago
  I don't think that's fair. Sure, the Constitution is in tatters but without the Bill of Rights I think we'd have lost even more freedom. At least folks have rallied around and protected some elements (guns, religious freedom, free speech to some degree).
- thwarted 16y ago
  In some sense, the Bill of Rights could be considered a premature optimization. Rather than waste time having the people and the government come to an agreement in an agile way, through multiple iterations, on the things the first 10 amendments cover, they just decided to preempt all that debate and bill-making and bill-overturning and list the things that were off-limits. Didn't turn out that way though. And like all premature optimizations, maybe it wasn't such a good idea.
  - hammock 16y ago
    The problem with the Bill of Rights is that it refocuses grievances from "where do you, the government derive the power to do such things?" to "what fundamental citizen right is being violated in this case?" Which sounds OK but it's just wrong. The latter question is relevant in terms of inter-citizen disputes like theft, but in terms of government intervention the former is the appropriate one. Unfortunately it's usually the latter that gets asked.

rst 16y ago

It doesn't say a thing about "electronic communications". Which gives prosecutors, the FBI, and the national security state a large opportunity to blow smoke.

tesseract 16y ago
Difficulty of amending the US constitution is a double edged sword.

pyre 16y ago

That paragraph was written before 9/11. Everything is different now. </sarcasm>

VladRussian 16y ago

Lets look into the precedents. Modern interpretation used by courts is that automated weapons didn't exist when 2nd Amendment was written. The same way it will be with email didn't exist back then. It doesn't matter that rifles of the time were the assault weapons of the time and the meaning of "papers" of the time can be extended to email.

cjeane 16y ago

The key here is that the data is obtained via a 3rd party. Once you as an individual share any information with a 3rd party you lose any expectation of privacy. In the digital world there are specific carve outs for email, but not much else. These actions are terrible, but completely legal.

jodrellblank 16y ago

I see the bits about your house, person, papers and effects, but which part covers a datacenter?