When It Comes To Spy Gear, Many Police Ignore Public Records Laws 78
v3rgEz writes What should take precedence: State public records laws, or contractual agreements between local police, the FBI, and the privately owned Harris Corporation? That's the question being played out across the country, as agencies are strongly divided on releasing much information, if any, on how they're using Stingray technology to collect and monitor phone metadata without judicial oversight.
The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Exciting. Impunity in NY City. [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Twelve, just in New York City.
When It Comes To The Constitution, Many Police Ignore it All Together.
Fixed.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The terms aren't illegal. Just because they conflict with public record laws doesn't make the terms illegal. Imagine you contract with Peter to sell your car, and then you contract with Paul to sell your car. No court is going to invalidate the contract with Paul just because you didn't have the right to sell him the car. The courts will enforce both contracts; one guy will get the car and the other will get damages for breach of contract.
In this situation the police will have to choose between obeying the
Re:The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
"Just because they conflict with public record laws doesn't make the terms illegal."
That is *literally* what the word "illegal" means.
Your example is irrelevant because it is a conflict between to contracts, not a contract and a law.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If I contract with Peter to sell him 100kg of cocaine and I get arrested while doing so, I can't use the contract in court to claim immunity from the law.
Re: (Score:1)
OMG. Somebody really needs to tell Uber about how all this stuff works.
Re: The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment (Score:1)
Actually? Said term is decided integrel to the core of the contract, the rest of a crontract stands, even if a provisions is struck down.
Re: The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment (Score:1)
Actually, if...
Re: (Score:2)
In other words; the company making the Stingray device can feel free to go out of business as they ONLY customers they have are not legally able to abide by these terms in the contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a piece of paper. (Score:1)
They don't want us to be able to keep anything at all secret. And they want to keep all their stuff secret. These incentives are natural enough, since knowledge is power.
Appeals to fairness or reason will have no impact whatsoever. Actual political force is the only way to make them do what they should.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want us to be able to keep anything at all secret. And they want to keep all their stuff secret.
That could change.
It's not like the hardware is not available.
http://www.testequipmentdepot.... [testequipmentdepot.com]
http://www.testequipmentdepot.... [testequipmentdepot.com]
http://www.testequipmentdepot.... [testequipmentdepot.com]
Strat
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
How quaint. The Feds haven't taken the Constitution seriously for generations.
Maybe it's time for a "Digital Second Amendment".
Whatever technological means the government may use to monitor/surveil/track/datamine individuals without a warrant may also be used to monitor/surveill/track/datamine those in government both while on and off the government clock by otherwise law-abiding people.
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
Alternate idea: an amendment that makes it a felony for government officials/reps/etc. to violate or aid/abet the violation of the constitutional rights of one or more people.
Maybe also a second one that gives everyone legal standing when mass rights violations occur, rather than requiring someone to jump through all the hoops to prove they were personally affected (e.g., from secret mass surveillance) like we have now.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternate idea: an amendment that makes it a felony for government officials/reps/etc. to violate or aid/abet the violation of the constitutional rights of one or more people.
Warrantless mass surveillance already violates the 4th Amendment and multiple laws.
What effect will another law have when the existing laws are ignored? Existing laws against these ongoing abuses have already, and continue to be, flaunted by those in government.
The digital Panopticon, if it is going to exist, needs to be universal in that citizens may not be denied the right and ability to use it to keep tabs on those in government.
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
Wait...when did they start teaching US History and Civics again?
I thought they replaced it with Diversity or some bullshit like that decades ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh constitution bla bla bla! The only question is what are you going to vote for, business as usual, or something more accommodating to good living and respect for all.
Re:The Constitution is Clear - Tenth Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
I recommend that you clarify your comment or else someone might mistake you for believing that the States are sovereign rather than the people.
Unlike the First Amendment, the Fourth through Sixth Amendments do not specifically constrain the federal government therefore they protect the people against the States as well. In addition, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically constrains the states.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How does it feel? A lot of people love it. Particularly bootlicking authoritarians who stick up for the police no matter what. You see illogical, ignorant arguments like "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!", "The police have hard jobs, so you must forgive them!", "They should've complied, and then the police wouldn't have used excessive force against them! It's all their fault that the police chose to use an unnecessary amount of force!", "Safety is more important than everyone's freedom
Re: (Score:1)
The question comes down to where to draw the line. How should the laws be written/interpreted when taking into account modern society? I'd be one of these "bootlickers" because my opinion doesn't match up to yours (in principal, not in this particular case. Fuck
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Society and technology have changed drastically over a couple hundred years. It's not cut and dry, as much as you want to believe it is.
It is cut and dry. "The land of the free and the home of the brave" would not surrender our fundamental liberties for safety.
The constitution does not change just because technology changes. It is general for a reason. If you want to change it, you must amend it. Our rights are not invalid just because of some technological innovations.
And what the hell are you talking about? Are you one of those police bootlickers that sticks up for the police no matter what? If not, why did you take issue with that specif
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go fuck yourself, you goddamn sniveling coward.
The freedoms enumerated by the Bill of Rights are absolute and not up for debate. You and the other authoritarian bootlickers can either accept them, or you can GTFO to North Korea where the government suits your preferences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the world is not fucking different! The world has never been fucking different! All that happened was that a few assholes got lucky on 9/11 and then dumbasses like you shit themselves and then let Bush et al. turn the US into a goddamn fascist police state! Being a dumbass is one thing, but being a dumbass in a way that screws over everybody else is not acceptable.
YOU LET THE TERRORISTS WIN, YOU GODDAMN MORON!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can insult me all you like, and live in denial all you like. It doesn't change the fact that you're a sniveling, cowardly, traitorous, authoritarian bootlicker who is too goddamn stupid to realize that you can't preserve freedom by destroying it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So,to my fellow Americans, how does living in a police state feel?
We won't know until the Cubs win the World Series.
Silly rabbit (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws are for the little people.
Re: (Score:1)
That would be statutory rape, except maybe in Kentucky or Tennessee.
No prosecutor is going to rock the boat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No prosecutor is going to rock the boat (Score:5, Insightful)
To that end his ambition will ALWAYS trump the law or his oath.
That is what the voters want. They will vote for the guy endorsed by the police over someone who was merely ethical. If you want things to change, look for who the police endorse, and then vote for the other guy. Convince others to do the same. The police should not be allowed to choose their political masters.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In an adversarial system the prosecutor is theoretically supposed to zealously apply the criminal law. Theoretically the source of the problem are the legislatures, who have passed sweeping criminal laws that permit prosecutors to slap even petty criminals with a ridiculously long list of charges with ridiculous penalties. This is why everybody takes a plea deal.
In reality, though, I agree that prosecutors have an ethical duty to not apply the overreaching criminal laws that the legislature keeps passing. B
Re: (Score:1)
The law is only applied to whoever the police don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
How dare those cops ignore our sacrosanct lawz??!!11
This may come as a surprise to you, but if a law the people don't want in the first place is unenforced, the people don't mind. OTOH, illegal / unconstitutional acts committed against the people by law enforcement are very much frowned upon by the populace at large.
To put it differently, if you're toking up in your back yard and I find a cop didn't bust you, I could care less. OTOH, if I find you're being illegally monitored I'm liable to take offense, as it could just as easily happen / be happening to me
Normal (Score:2, Informative)
I work at a government agency and this is standard procedure for any request that potentially might embarrass the agency, or even be difficult to turn up. If you ignore a request somebody has to have the resources to sue you in order to force you to produce the requested documents, and even then there's no real penalty. Why not ignore by default?
Slashdot Is Fox News for Lefties But Worse (Score:3, Interesting)
The linked to article, written by the organization that's trying to get the records, is more fair than the Slashdot summary. If you read the actual article, you'll see that it's not a case of policy "ignoring public records laws". In a lot of the cases, the states are claiming that Stingray documents fall under the exceptions IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS LAWS. That's not "ignoring the law." If the requesting party appeals, they still have to convince a judge that that's the correct interpretation of the law. In the states where the documents don't potentially fall under such an exception, they still have a *contract* with the federal government that requires them to allow the federal government to exhaust their own legal options before releasing the data. The Contract Clause "No state shall .... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" combined with the Supremacy Clause (which basically says that the constitution and federal laws made in accordance with it are the law of the land, "anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.") give the federal government a very good chance of preventing disclosure by taking the case to a federal court. The rule of law doesn't mean that the government doesn't have any powers or that all legal disputes are settled the way YOU want them to. Everything about this situation is a perfect example of the rule of law working exactly as it should. There's a disagreement, conflicting contracts and laws, and legal ambiguity, so the parties will have to GO TO COURT to sort it all out.
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
police support the creation and advancement of police states. Also in other news, water is wet.
Nothing to see here folks.
The issue is not with the police, which more often than not support doing away with any pesky human rights and oversight which make it "harder" for them to do their jobs, but with the cowardly sheeple who empower them by happily give up their freedom every time some they hear someone say boo.
Yes terrorism is horrible, but lots of other risks in life are much more deadly, including gun culture, obesity and processed foods industry, poverty, insufficient vaccination and medical treatment, etc. And yet very little is done to address these other issues since steeples don't consider them as scary.
Strange that we were able to defeat the Nazi horrors without having to resort to creating our own police states, in which every citizen is monitored and they activity permanently archived.
Re: In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Interested comment from an Anonymous Coward, who is too scared to stand behind their words.
The fact is that numerous polls in many countries including the USA show that there is unfortunately significant public support for increasing police powers and decreasing oversight.
Keep in mind that these same idiots also vote for the same corrupt politicians from the same corrupt parties as well.
When the sheeple finally reach their breaking point and have enough, they end up supporting whatever nut cases can best sell them the simplest counter-production solution which best promotes the fantasy that they can have their cake and eat it too. (Think USA rightist tea parties and Greek syriza leftists.)
Precedence? Unnecessary. (Score:1)
You can easily heed both the manufacturer's conditions as well as the Constitution by not switching the damn illegal device on ever. It is not designed for lawful use, it is not suitable for lawful use, so if you have been as stupid to buy it, it stays off.
And the manufacturer can't complain. And neither can the citizens. The accountants might be annoyed at wasted money, but it turns out that most of these things are bought with money that is not accounted for, like money stolen via "civil forfeiture".
THIS IS GREAT (Score:1)
The police do not have to obey the law. The president does not have to obey the law. I do not have to obey the law either. Up Up with anarchy.
The citizens of the United States face many enemies who wish to do them irreparable harm. Most of them are in congress, the white house, the court system, and on the television.
someone call Anonymous (Score:2)
And that it would do a whole lot more social good than the "high school quarterback rapist of the week" that tends to be their high profile targets. While those scumbags are good targets, and certainly deserve to be brought to justice when there is some sort of cover-up or injustice involved, in the end
The Harris Corporati
What an absurd question... (Score:2)
I mean, it's not absurd to raise it, but it's pretty absurd that's it's considered in any way debatable. I mean, if it was a question between the law, and a contract I made with an arbitrary third party which allowed me to kill people with impunity, which has more legal power? The law, of course. By the nature of contract law, you cannot make something which is otherwise illegal legal, just because you have a contract which allows you to do it.
In the same way, the government spying on people in unconstituti