US House of Representatives Votes To Cut Funding To NSA 164
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday night, 293 to 123, to approve an amendment to the NSA's appropriations bill that cuts all funding for warrantless surveillance and for programs that force companies to create backdoors in their products. The success of this vote in the House is attributed to the fact that the amendment did not have to go through the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees and also to the increasingly apparent unpopularity of NSA activities among voters. Although privacy advocates laud the vote, there are those who note that the amendment specifically applies to the NSA and CIA while remaining silent on other agencies such as the FBI. The appropriations bill in its entirety will now proceed to the Senate for approval."
Next! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
well, cia wasn't supposed to be doing it on american soil in the first place... and nsa has secret court warrants anyways?
Re:Next! (Score:5, Insightful)
A few decades ago the very existence of NSA was a secret. The CIA had a bad rep.
Now the NSA has a bad rep. So it's time to wind down the importance of NSA and introduce a new sooper dooper sekrit spy agency that can do dirty tricks in the dark without oversight, and especially without pesky annoyances like laws and the constitution. Meanwhile the NSA and CIA can both get all the public bad press, criticism, and 'oversight' of pointy-haired congresscritters.
Re:Next! (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny? probably some dutchmen at work here. NSB was the dutch nazi party just before and during WW2. In dutch 'NSBer' still means traitor or snitch.
yes, dutch nazis (Score:2)
dutch nazis, and other quasi-nazis are surely behind alot of BS in America....for sure...wont' argue that point
I guess I applaud this law, however I *want* the authorities, with proper warrant, to be able to access any digital/analog communication
if you were the victim you'd expect it
Re: (Score:2)
I *want* the authorities, with proper warrant, to be able to access any digital/analog communication
if you were the victim you'd expect it
Emphasis mine. That's really the key, isn't it...proper warrant? Having a proper warrant also means they have to show probable cause. This law is about defunding warrantless wiretapping. But, like was pointed out, it doesn't name the FBI. Did you know that the FBI is officially no longer a law enforcement agency, but is instead now an anti-terror agency? This pretty much means that the FBI can use it as an excuse to be the ones doing domestic warrantless wiretapping. However, even though this law may
Re:yes, dutch nazis (Score:4, Informative)
I *want* the authorities, with proper warrant, to be able to access any digital/analog communication
if you were the victim you'd expect it
Emphasis mine. That's really the key, isn't it...proper warrant? Having a proper warrant also means they have to show probable cause. This law is about defunding warrantless wiretapping. But, like was pointed out, it doesn't name the FBI. Did you know that the FBI is officially no longer a law enforcement agency, but is instead now an anti-terror agency? This pretty much means that the FBI can use it as an excuse to be the ones doing domestic warrantless wiretapping. However, even though this law may just shuffle things around (even if it miraculously passes the senate), I see it as a Very Good Thing because it's a step in the right direction: Pushing back against blatant constitutional violations.
Actually, the amendment doesn't defund warrantless wiretapping directly, at least as I read it. What it specifically states is "none of the funds made available by this Act may be used by an officer or employee of the United States to query a collection of foreign intelligence information acquired under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) using a United States person identifier."
My interpretation of that amendment is that nothing prohibits the NSA or the CIA from collecting that data, but it disallows them from directly requesting any information from that data tied directly to a US citizen. More specifically, it says that no one funded by that appropriations bill can do that. Since the data is collected by the NSA and its funding comes from that bill, it legally bars them from performing any similar query for any other agency as well.
There are still a lot of loopholes that could be used to try to evade this amendment, assuming it passes, but it does seem to indicate that outside of the House committees that are directly involved with intelligence oversight, there is strong political will in both Democratic and Republican circles to curtail this type of activity. That's a necessary first step to making any long term changes. But it is only a first step.
Or just naties (Score:2)
dutch nazis, and other quasi-nazis are surely behind alot of BS in America
But to the Dutch, all the nations are run by Nazis. In Dutch, the suffix "ation" is spelled "atie", and it rhymes with Yahtzee. German speakers watch Dutch TV and get confused when the news anchor mentions what sounds like "United Nazis", because natie (nation) and Nazi (National Socialist) are homophones. It also led me to think up the portmanteau "discriminazi", meaning one who discriminates against a particular class of people out of prejudice, because that's what the Dutch word for discrimination sounds
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, when I said "dutch nazis" I was meaning americans who have Dutch ancestory...many are nazis who were one of a large family chosen to go to America...sort of upper middle class colonialism
they retain alot of the ideological similarities with nazis, and some still directly profit from ill gotten gains
as to people who current live in The Netherlands, I have no cause to call them "nazis"
the Dutch are not citizens...like the English, CAnadians, and others they are ***subjects*** of royalty
Aristocracy is st
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The next super secret spy agency will be a private contractor group that has ginormous interests in building profiles of internet users, their interests, their browsing habits, and will be able to convince everyone to use them without blinking an eye. They will then monitor, filter, and sell that data back to the US Government because some clause in the EULA will allow them to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Current trend is to privatize dirty work so it doesn't have to make government look bad and can't be easily asked to be audited.
So NSC. National Security Company. Aka Whitewater, because what could possibly go wrong!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Next! (Score:2)
If he blatantly disregards the will of the people in such a way, then impeachment is next on the agenda.
The NSA helps Chinese sell technology products? (Score:2, Interesting)
U.S. government policies allow many secret agencies. I find it odd that news stories assume that, other than doing things that almost no citizens want, the secret agencies are otherwise well-managed. For example, in the case of Edward Snowden [wikipedia.org], someone who worked for a sub-contractor was able to walk away with all the data.
To me, it i
Hm... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No, actually what the NSA needs to do is launch a PR campaign to tell us just why we need to be monitored. I'm thinking super bowl commercials, ads on the front page of newspapers, billboards, and a sticker on each banana sold. *grabs calculator* Let's see.... this should cost.... Well, I'll be. Exactly the same amount as what the House is cutting. Plus a billion dollars.
Re:Hm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know! How about Big Brother is Watching You! And the face should, of course, have a smile and a pleasant, re-assuring image.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the billboards with the logo would contain cameras to actually watch you.
You wouldn't want the NSA to lie, would you?!!!
Re: (Score:3)
I know! How about Big Brother is Watching You! And the face should, of course, have a smile and a pleasant, re-assuring image.
Even better: "The NSA - The only part of your government that actually listens!"
As for the logo, once more 4chan has us covered
http://i59.tinypic.com/2rngfq1... [tinypic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hehehe, nice!
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe crush some "undesirables", you know, in its hand.
Re: (Score:2)
I know just the slogan for that!
"Big Brother is watching you!"
Of course, that my be copyrighted to one Orwell, G.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but there will be political hell to pay if there is another 9/11.
Black Swan (Score:5, Insightful)
There WILL be another 9/11. This stuff happens, and it CAN NOT be 100% avoided.
You can do some things that could help (hint: the issue with 9/11 wasn't a lack of info, but a lack of communication. We still have this problem regardless what the NSA does), but you can't stop it from ever happening.
So, no matter what things you do to prevent 9/11, something like it will happen again. The Boston Marathon bombings, while much less severe, show that even with the super surveillance, people dedicated to cause death can do it, and always will be able to.
What makes for more interesting discussion is if there are ways of preventing the root causes for wanting to cause death. Perhaps that can be more effective than ignoring what the cause is & trying to stop the effect?
Re:Black Swan (Score:5, Insightful)
There WILL be another 9/11. This stuff happens, and it CAN NOT be 100% avoided.
It is also not a problem, unless you panic and cower in fear every time it happens. Or start to establish a totalitarian police and surveillance state. The right reaction is to just move on and show the attackers that they are pathetic. That is how you are resilient and strong as a country.
People die every day and it sucks, but terrorism is way down on the list of unnatural causes.
Re: (Score:2)
We agree completely on this point.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Keeping the population in fear against a (perceived) powerful enemy works well to control them. A time-honored practice for establishing totalitarian regimes. Of course, it requires a pathetic, cowardly population in the first place for that to work.
Re: (Score:2)
No way, they pay people visits with machine guns when they need to. Didn't you see Sneakers?
But money is fungible (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If the law says they can't spend money on a program then they can't spend money on a program right?
Also, isn't there a limit to how agencies can move funding around? If there isn't then why do we fight over weather to fund programs or not, just give them X amount and tell them to spend it how they see fit?
Re:But money is fungible (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It just might work. Money is more important than laws these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see what happens before we pass judgment though.
No, let's not.
They are totally incapable of following the law, as written, nevermind the spirit of the law.
The NSA has proven that it cannot be trusted with a single penny. Merely telling them "don't do that" with money doesn't change the fact that the NSA leadership doesn't give a damn what the law says.
Federal agencies can have you disappeared and you can't do a damn thing about it.^1 You think a little thing like funding is going to change things i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when did the Law matter to this Administration?
Re: (Score:2)
s/this/any/
Calm down - it's not a real prohibition (Score:5, Informative)
From the news:
"he amendment would block the NSA from using any of its funding from this Defense Appropriations Bill to conduct such warrantless searches."
It only covers THIS appropriations bill. They'll just sneak funding into another one to make it up.
You have to pay careful attention to the language these people use.
" In addition, the amendment would prohibit the NSA from using its budget to mandate or request that private companies and organizations add backdoors to the encryption standards that are meant to keep you safe on the web."
So, money that is NOT budgeted, as in part of planned spending, as in slush fund money, is fair game.
Any time an amendment talks about what they cannot use particular money for, as opposed to simply prohibiting the action, it will be full of loopholes.
When there is an amendment that prohibits the ACTION, then we'll have something to be happy about. Nothing in this amendment prohibits the spying.
Re: (Score:1)
From the news:
"he amendment would block the NSA from using any of its funding from this Defense Appropriations Bill to conduct such warrantless searches."
It only covers THIS appropriations bill. They'll just sneak funding into another one to make it up.
You have to pay careful attention to the language these people use.
" In addition, the amendment would prohibit the NSA from using its budget to mandate or request that private companies and organizations add backdoors to the encryption standards that are meant to keep you safe on the web."
So, money that is NOT budgeted, as in part of planned spending, as in slush fund money, is fair game.
Any time an amendment talks about what they cannot use particular money for, as opposed to simply prohibiting the action, it will be full of loopholes.
When there is an amendment that prohibits the ACTION, then we'll have something to be happy about. Nothing in this amendment prohibits the spying.
i want to mod you up so hard
Re:Calm down - it's not a real prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
The Vietnam war didn't end, congress stopped funding it. Putting money into a slush fund doesn't suddenly make it legal to spend it on the defunded activity, just ask the Iran-contra guys. As has already been said the obvious loophole is that it names particular agencies, why coat the obvious with conspiratorial nonsense?
Re:Calm down - it's not a real prohibition (Score:5, Informative)
Technically, the Vietnam War didn't START.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
The table below lists the five wars in which the United States has formally declared war against eleven foreign nations.
War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II
After WWII presidents just stopped asking congress to declare war for them and just 'sent troops'.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd give it an Overratted if had a point to spare. The Vietnam war didn't end, congress stopped funding it. Putting money into a slush fund doesn't suddenly make it legal to spend it on the defunded activity, just ask the Iran-contra guys. As has already been said the obvious loophole is that it names particular agencies, why coat the obvious with conspiratorial nonsense?
Because these days it turns out more and more to not be nonsense. I think EmagGeek has a point that the language seems to leave open the possibility of the funding coming from other sources. In the days of secret interpretations of laws, I don't think that should be discounted.
Big brother needs cash, badly. (Score:2)
Americans tend to be complacent in the face of minor irritations, but when faced with a real threat/outrage they tend to go completely postal. Just ask the Imperial government
Re: (Score:2)
Fun fact: which was worse, Richard Nixon's abuse of federal power by ordering a break-in at Democratic Party HQ, or the IRS' abuse of federal power by Lois Lerner and her henchmen? Nixon knew what he di
Re: (Score:3)
That's because new law automagically supersedes old law. And since an appropriations bill is, in fact, a law, next year's appropriations bill will automagically supersede this bill.
Of course, realistically, this bill will go nowhere, since the Senate doesn't seem terribly inclined to rein in the NSA.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not exactly clear to me. The voting for this bill seemed to be a combination of almost all the Democrats and a good percentage but not majority of Republicans. That's the kind of thing that would work in the Senate.
The thing about this is that it's the wrong bill. What needs to be done is to pass legislation that actually makes these activities illegal, including evisceration of the Patriot Act and updating of the Electronic Communications Privacy act, and definition of 'devices' such as laptops and
Re:Calm down - it's not a real prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's soooo much easier to just not fund it currently. It shows that they demand accountability and to stop spying on Americans...this week. It holds open the possibility to fund it later by slipping it in as part of some larger budget bill. You know, when it's politically more advantageous to "stop terrorism", "save American lives", or "think of the children".
If they make it illegal now, they'd have to go through the hassle of making it legal later, then still have to fund it through another bill.
Re: (Score:3)
Which can be superseded by...you guessed it...a new law later. Just like this one can be superseded by a new law (read: new budget bill).
The only conceivable way to make this go away permanently is a Supreme Court Ruling that this sort of thing is unconstitutional. If you're really interested in making the problem go away, that's what you need to be bending your efforts toward - test cases in two different Appeal di
Re:Calm down - it's not a real prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
Bah. Congress can prohibit ACTIONS until they're blue in the face, but those prohibitions rely on an executive branch that is willing to enforce them. This executive in particular has a history of declining to enforce laws that it doesn't like. (Yes, Bush did it too with his "signing statements". Two wrongs don't make a right.)
The true power of Congress is the power of the purse. If they don't want the executive doing something, the surest way to prevent it is to deny them the money to do it. This amendment is about the strongest form of prohibition they can make, short of cutting funding for NSA entirely (which would be pretty stupid).
Agreed it doesn't prevent them from doing it anyway with money from other sources, but then that money can't be used for whatever they were planning to do with it before. At least Congress is trying to do something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, I'd have thought if they actually wanted to stop the NSA doing this sort of thing or be more transparent about it then they'd just shut down the secret courts.
Altering a single budget seems to be a distraction at best.
Re:Calm down - it's not a real prohibition (Score:4, Insightful)
If they really wanted to shut it down effectively, they'd expire the PATRIOT act. It's a dog and pony vote because it's not actually making the activity illegal.
Another Congressional shell game. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the Senate can weaken the bill, or strengthen it. Which way will they go?
Re: (Score:2)
When there is an amendment that prohibits the ACTION
There is. Specifically, the 4th one. It's the executive branch that's tasked with enforcement, but since they're the ones violating it congress really only has 2 ways to enforce it: Cut funding or impeach the president*.
*In the last 150 years, presidential impeachment only comes from getting a blowjob, not from committing crimes or blatant constitutional violations. In order for the president to be impeached, James Clapper would have to say he gave a blowjob to the president. Since that's unlikely to ha
This is a start (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The government should do it for free*.
(* just like 'free' public roads, public education, and many other 'free' things from the government)
Pablum For Peons (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered why the CIA didn't just back a truck up to the bureau of engraving and drive away with 45' semi filled with currency. Or operate their own printing plants.
They probably use a ton of cash in covert operations anyway and @ 12.5 cents per $100 it's a hell of a lot cheaper. Given that M1 is 2.7 trillion and most of this would be spent overseas anyway where it would have little inflationary impact it seems like a cheap way to do dirty business.
Re: (Score:2)
you assume it never happened
for all you know there is a mini money printer at langley
Re: (Score:2)
Doing US currency right from new isn't easy, making an in-house operation at any scale tough to do, although I'm sure there's some kind of in-house counterfeiting operation to do small volumes of foreign currency.
Circumventing accounting at the printing plant would also be tough and risk a lot of exposure.
I'd guess that the easier way to do it is to hijack "old bills" on their way to destruction, now that I think about it, especially if they were destined for overseas use where their worn status would make
Re: (Score:2)
Car dealership, you're so cute. The CIA was heavily involved in drug and weapons dealing. I'm not certain if they still are, but that they were is in public records. And not in a small way, either.
Good start (Score:1)
At least the elected still have to listen (Score:5, Insightful)
At the very least the representatives still have to pay me some lip service. Hell, some of them may have retained the ability to care.
Either way, it's a small victory for the Republic.
Re:At least the elected still have to listen (Score:5, Insightful)
its not a small victory. its the APPEARANCE of one, which is worse, because it will wrongfully quiet down a lot of complainers. which is all its intended to do.
there is 0.000000% chance that we will get our freedoms back, at least peacefully in this v1.0 government style we have created over the centuries. 1.0 worked fine when tech was stone knives and bearskins. now, 1.0 is outdated (and neutered!) and so, whatever our system comes up with, its a lie and its bullshit.
why, people, do you continue to give hope where its not deserved or earned?
Re: (Score:2)
its not a small victory. its the APPEARANCE of one, which is worse, because it will wrongfully quiet down a lot of complainers. which is all its intended to do.
Welcome to the United States of America, where perception is everything and nothing is what it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
Finding things to be grateful for reflects a much rarer optimism in basic human goodness than does an eternal penchant in identifying things to be hateful for.
You're posting wisely on Slashdot... take the high, hard road. It's not over til we say it's over.
Re:At least the elected still have to listen (Score:4, Interesting)
Black is white. Up is down. Secret courts can issue secret overly broad warrants to secretly spy on everyone all the time. People can be secretly compelled to secretly hand over their secret keys and keep this a secret. People can be compelled to help spy on you and keep this a secret. People can be secretly arrested, and taken to secret prisons. We have secret trials with secret evidence. Defendants are now not even allowed access to the secret evidence against them. I thought I had heard everything when a government official said that their interpretation of the law was secret. (I'm sure they were thinking this keeps the enemy from knowing.)
So yes, these people can go on with business as usual. All they need is a hand waving rationalization to make it all okay.
No (Score:3)
I'm keenly aware this statement by the US House can be circumvented in some fashion. These folks they're dealing with are secret agencies.
At the very least the representatives still have to pay me some lip service. Hell, some of them may have retained the ability to care.
Either way, it's a small victory for the Republic.
Forget the lip service. Just forget it. When you get involved in power politics at the level you're talking about, what happens *in the meeting* is what matters, and what you talk about outside the meeting is the window dressing.
Personalities change when you go into the back room. So do goals. People beg, borrow, steal, lie, blackmail, and it's all about what you can do for me, what I can do for you, what we can deliver, how we can ensure goal X gets done, and goal X isn't what we tell the people outsid
Moving money (Score:5, Insightful)
I wholeheartedly support this initiative of shifting money from a known three letter entity to a different unknown three letter entity that will now conduct our surveillance state in complete secret.
Re: (Score:2)
It's people who don't understand that government must fear th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No other three letter agency has the capability. CIA, FBI, and DIA don't have budgets even remotely close to the NSA. The US moved to SIGINT back in the late 90s and put most of the resources there. Hoever, I am not sure how much defunding will help. The infrastructure is already build and operating...this will just make the NSA let go a few contractors and continue operating. They need to pass a bill that dismantles the Patriot Act.
KeyboardInterrupt (Score:2)
The US moved to SIGINT back in the late 90s and put most of the resources there.
If we're spending so much on SIGINT, then why can't we just send a Ctrl+C [wikipedia.org] to warrantless wiretaps and adding backdoors to software?
How will Congress monitor this? (Score:2)
Here's what I don't get. From what I understand, the NSA is not directly answerable to Congress - they're indirectly answerable through their parent agency, the Department of Defense, but they themselves are not answerable to Congress. What's stopping them from outwardly agreeing to Congress's regulations (assuming they pass) but inwardly ignoring them and continuing to do what they've been doing for years?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you heard, congress will do anything, and I mean ANYTHING for money. They don't even make much of a pretense of representing the people any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pssst. This is a bill of APPROPRIATIONS. As such, like any other appropriations bill, it does not tell
What I want.... (Score:2)
Is warrant-less surveillance of the 123 rat bastards who voted against this.
Easily Solved (Score:3)
* You know who you are
Re: (Score:2)
I predict a number of congressmen will soon get caught attempting to give handies in airport bathrooms...
* You know who you are
You mean someone knows who they are.
Who needs funding? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Patriot Act II? (Score:3)
Wrong bill. (Score:5, Insightful)
They should made it illegal for companies to be gagged from making public comment when served with such warrants. They're a violation of the first amendment at the very least.
Freedom of speech. You silence me and make it illegal to even say I was silenced... how is that not a violation?
Re: (Score:2)
No... they just get away with it because its kept out of the light of day. Part of the reason they want to keep it quite. Already with the exposure they're getting its getting attacked by congress for the first time EVER.
Now consider what would happen if anyone that had this happen was legally allowed to talk about it... the whole practice would not be acceptable IF people were kept aware of it.
Its like those guys that kept women in their rape dungeons... living next to families having BBQs... they got away
It's just window dressing (Score:2)
as are our elections. Carefully calculated to project an illusion.
Cut NSA's funding for surveillance? How much does it cost the NSA to send letters demanding access and secrecy? What about the cost of maintaining all those servers and huge databases? Chump change. They'll unscrew a few lightbulbs and start stocking the employee restrooms with cheaper toilet paper.
Hold elections every two, four, or six years to elect politicians to run the government? A great way to give the masses the illusion that th
Wrong Solution. Wrong Problem. (Score:2)
US House of Representatives Votes To Cut Funding To NSA
Not sure if this a solution to... what? One can cut to one's heart content, but without structural reforms, the problems that plague NSA will remain there. So, we cut funding, and all we get is to cripple a vital organization that needs to function well, without fixing the things that makes it not function well. Funding is not the root cause. It is not a monetary problem, but a political one.
Not to worry ... (Score:2)
I'm sure the NSA et al have shell corporations in order to fund all the stuff they won't admit to doing.
And I'm sure the dragnet of surveillance allows them to do some pretty lucrative insider trading.
The shadow government will be well funded, and will just go further underground and it will be business as usual, and the politicians get to keep acting like they're in charge.
You know, it's pretty sad when you more or less have to assume all of the tropes from movies are actually happening. Increasingly it f
Just a note (Score:3)
Ok, ignoring all the armchair generals who are saying How It Should Be...
This is a good thing. It's not the RIGHT thing. Ahem. "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" Frankly, warrantless wiretapping IS illegal, per the US Constitution.
I don't blame the government. I blame us. There's less than 50% voter turnout. People ramble about the ammo box, but we haven't even TRIED the ballot box yet, and apparently we can't be bothered to. This is OUR fault.
That the House of Reps actually did this is an amazing step in the right direction. Everyone whines that it's not enough, but you NEVER get what you want in one go. It's always a slow series of steps. It's a continual fight.
Anyway, just a note... Dems: 158 yes, 29 no. Repubs: 135 yes, 94 no. Many more Dems voted for this. Think on that next time someone (possibly you) trots out how much Dems love big government and spending, and hate freedom. Sigh... The really sad thing is that there are no Independant votes on this, because there are no Independant reps, because you bastards can't be bothered to vote. :(
Re: (Score:3)
As a Canadian I do find it fascinating. So many Americans feel they need their guns to protect their rights and freedoms and are very vocal about that, but your rights and freedoms are disappearing at a rapid pace and the guns don't seem to be doing you much good.
Apparently the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct, but the 4th is disposable. I wonder which one will be next?
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the only freedom they care about is their freedom to buy guns (and its bastard child, the "stand your ground" laws that allow you to use deadly force against anyone you feel threatened by). For some reason that one trumps all others.
There is a lot of overlap between the hard core 2nd amendment defenders and the people who would like to trash the separation of church and state and turn the US into a theocracy, not unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan.
And further overlap among those who have stic
Re: (Score:2)
I expect the queen is just chilling with her corgis.
Myself, I'm profoundly glad I don't live in America.
So yes, it is nice.
Re: (Score:2)
"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" Frankly, warrantless wiretapping IS illegal, per the US Constitution.
The per the US Constitution part is debatable, nothing you quoted makes it so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... [wikipedia.org]
I agree with Justice Black, that the Fourth Amendment was not intended to protect your privacy. It was intended to prevent the government from physically intruding on your life. It would have been worded to include eavesdropping if it was meant to be. IMO, if you want privacy protections you need specific laws or new amendments.
If you read the Fourth as some kind of generic privacy protection th
This Is The Same Way You Kill Cancer. (Score:3)
- cut off the blood supply to the tumor.
Alternative Title Suggestion (Score:2)
"NSA gets 'Creative Accounting' lesson from the Experts"
John Poindexter (Score:2)
Is John Poindexter available? He has experience not only with information awareness but also self-funding operations.
No worries (Score:2)