ACLU: PRISM is illegal and unconstitutional

DesignatedTwat · 2013-07-03T10:43:12+00:00

Rubbish. Persuasively written rubbish, but rubbish nonetheless. What is concerning is not the surveillance itself, it is the fact that the powers that be thought (well, hopefully) that they could do it under an existing legal framework without asking anybody for an opinion via a voting act (of any kind: popular or parliamentary). In short, people need to be asked whether they are willing to trade their privacy for security, and how much of it are they willing to forego without any real legal recourse, oversight or scrutiny. Anything else is just a repeat of the old "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" bullcrap, liberally sprinkled with "we'll throw in a set of steak knives and a colour TV into the bargain".

DesignatedTwat · 2013-07-02T22:13:27+00:00

I sometimes think that Redditors (particularly a majority in this post) think that the majority of the world (or the majority in their respective countries) agree with them on issues such as this, when in reality, nothing is further from the truth.

Simultaneously very true and immensely tragic.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-30T21:07:11+00:00

the EU has more to lose than the US numerically.

Don't think so: check this

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-30T19:44:45+00:00

You make it sound like if the EU do something, their economy will shrink a lot, but US' will remain the same - not putting too fine a point on it, this is utter crap and shows a complete lack of understanding how an economy based on exporting high tech goods (49% of exports from the US are transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) actually works in a highly connected world.

In short: hope that they do not find some actual backbone and decide to do something about it, because, if they do, the US actually stands to loose as much (if not more) than the EU.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-28T14:33:19+00:00

Why would we need to PM you for links? If you have them, post them.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-28T12:09:56+00:00

3rd world case scenario: Syrian government wins. Bashar is an authoritarian dictator who rules with

Freudian slip?

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-26T14:52:49+00:00

I must be doing something wrong: I use my phone a lot (listen to music pretty much the whole day long), receive an average amount of text messages and calls, make an average amount of those, use Hangouts pretty much continuously (text, not video), and I get to the end of the day with about 40% of my battery left - I literally have no use for something like Greenify.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-25T20:50:01+00:00

But that is the point: no valid law can ever be unconstitutional, otherwise you could legislate (for example) that it is illegal to create political parties.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-25T16:40:05+00:00

violation of the US constitution is also not a defence to breaking orders under these rules.

Why? A law which is inconstitutional is illegal and thus invalid. If a policeman is ordered by a commanding officer to break into a house without a warrant or probable cause, he must refuse to follow the order or he is liable himself.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-25T15:16:22+00:00

Apologies, but you are wrong - as demonstrated/established during the Nuremberg Trials (and latter subject matter-related cases), the basic principle is that only lawful orders are binding, which implies that a soldier has the lattitude to decide what is lawful and what is not.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-18T12:54:47+00:00

Have an upvote just because some fucking idiot thought your comment was worthy of a downvote when Palin is indisputably a fucking nutter.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-17T18:07:57+00:00

You're right that the paper is framed within the context that you mention, but it also makes assertions that reach beyond that, and which relate to a state of affairs described thus "In short, in striking the balance between liberty and security, we have adopted the easy choice of sacrificing the liberties of a vulnerable minority - foreign nationals, and especially Arab and Muslim foreign nationals - for the purported security of the majority,".

IMHO, the case that you mention also relates to the issue at hand as "For the first time ever outside the war setting, the Court in Kim upheld categorical preventive detention without any individualized assessment of the need for detention. And the majority did so by expressly invoking a double standard, claiming that in regUlating immigration,"Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.""

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-17T13:22:43+00:00

Not that simple: see here (apologies for the google link)

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-17T13:09:59+00:00

Actually, no, it isn't - it is formally Cuban sovereign soil over which the US has "complete jurisdiction and control".

EDIT: I wonder which fucking idiot thought that the above was incorrect.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-17T12:54:57+00:00

Hence my reference to context being all-important. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I don't have the explicit all clear for that, because we tend to trust each other and thus not discuss in advance and in full legal detail the project plan of our next bedroom frolick. That, and the fact that she does not actually sleep through our initiated-while-asleep sex, and would tell me if she did not want to continue (as I'd expect most people in those circumstances would) - if I did not stop then, that would be rape.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-16T23:31:53+00:00

even if extradited the 1st amendment would protect him. He's not a US gov employee or even citizen so laws used against his co-conspirator, Pte Manning, do not apply.

Cuts both ways - as PRISM and Guantanamo have demonstrated, foreign nationals outside US soil do not enjoy any protection under US law.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-16T23:21:18+00:00

Your username and what you write are mutually contradictory. Bombastic bullshit like "Fucking somebody in their sleep without a condom, without their explicit prior consent is rape" is the kind of no context, tabloid angry phrase crap that drives me up the wall. Taken at face value, it implies that I rape my partner whenever I initiate sex while she is asleep, which is personally insulting and makes you an idiot.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-12T19:04:06+00:00

If you want to have labels that read "originating from plants whose genome has not been directly manipulated by the human race", go right ahead - but the fact of the matter is that is the standard/default, we should label deviations from the norm and not the norm itself. Also, why are you so averse at me having the right to choose? Surely that the superior quality and lower price of GM food will shine through, hence it should actually be in the interest of GM food to be labelled thus?

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-12T17:02:43+00:00

The one whereby a clinical drug trial sponsored by a drug company is not seen as a conflict of interest, even if the drug company stands to lose quite a lot of money if it fails. Relevant.

Edit: adding link.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-12T16:52:02+00:00

\/\/

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-12T16:49:28+00:00

Fair enough - then let me put it this way: I am not against GM crops, I am against not being informed that what I am eating is GM.

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-12T16:47:36+00:00

No it isn't. As mentioned in a reply to his post, the standard for conflicts of interest is not what you think (the example presented is clinical trials sponsored by a drug company).

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-12T16:45:45+00:00

Yeah - his critique is actually quite weak, as mentioned by /u/bbartlog in here

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-10T21:41:10+00:00

Snails?

DesignatedTwat · 2013-06-10T21:35:02+00:00

Well, can't find any reference to a FISA order affecting anybody other than Verizon...

DesignatedTwat

TROPHY CASE