Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned 670
schwit1 writes "The Obama administration is seeking to reverse a federal appeals court decision that dramatically narrows the government’s search-and-seizure powers in the digital age. Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Justice Department officials are asking the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its August ruling that federal prosecutors went too far when seizing 104 professional baseball players’ drug results when they had a warrant for just 10. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
I am shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
That it's taking people this long to realize nothing ever changes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, just because there is one are on which two administrations agree and you don't, does it mean that there are no meaningful differences between G.W.Bush and Obama at all?
Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are certainly meaningful differences, but at the end of the day the top prosecutors in the United States still want those X-Ray glasses so they can watch the citizens for criminal conduct.
Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
i am pretty sure we are all potential criminals, no such thing as a citizen anymore
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I am shocked! (Score:4, Informative)
If they're not POWs, then why would they be tried in a military tribunal?
Like it or not there's multiple [cato.org] precedents [historynet.com] for doing exactly that. Enemy combatants are only accorded POW status if they obey the laws of war. When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.
Careful with that - next you'll be asking for all those thousands of US mercernaries in Afghanistan (who outnumber actually US troops) to wear military uniforms too and prevent civilian casualties. IT would be funny if it didn't make me cry. Or maybe some of those mercernaries in Iraq too, but then, that's apparently not Obama
Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Like it or not there's multiple [cato.org] precedents [historynet.com] for doing exactly that. Enemy combatants are only accorded POW status if they obey the laws of war.
The first link is about the execution of the conspirators in the Abraham Lincoln assassination.
The second link is about German saboteurs from WWII who were executed as spies.
1. What the fuck does that have to do with enemy combatants?
2. Those were the first two times military tribunals had ever been convened and they were controversial then.
Yes, 144 years ago, it was controversial to try non-POWs by the military.
The lengths people go to justify the Bush definition of "enemy combatants" never fails to surprise me.
When Al Quada starts fighting in uniforms under a flag and taking steps to prevent civilian casualties (rather then setting out to cause them) then we can start treating them as POWs.
This was written in 1949 [icrc.org]
Read the last paragraph.
If they aren't POWs (3rd Geneva Convention), then they are civilians (4th Convention).
International law is crystal clear that there is no intermediate status.
How hard is it to comprehend that you cannot throw people down a legal black hole and torture them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also any information obtained by torture is evidence only of what the people carrying out the torture wanted to hear. In terms of what that person may or may not have done it's utterly meaningless. If spouting fiction is required to stop the torture then the person being tortured *will* spout whatever fiction those doing the torture will accept.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The lengths people go to justify the Bush definition of "enemy combatants" never fails to surprise me.
They are enemy combatants. Even if they were POWs they would still be considered enemy combatants. We didn't give the POWs we captured in WW2 access to our civilian justice system. We held them until the end of hostilities. The reason that the people in Gitmo didn't get POW status is because they refuse to follow the accepted laws of war. This really isn't that complicated to understand.
If they aren't POWs (3rd Geneva Convention), then they are civilians (4th Convention).
International law is crystal clear that there is no intermediate status.
No, they aren't civilians. You lose your status as a civilian when you pick up a rifle and start shooting at our pe
Re:I am shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)
How hard is it for you to understand that spies are fucking spies and we're not going to sit by and have them use our own laws to fuck us in the ass?
I think a strong argument can be made that by not using our own laws, legal traditions, and the like, we are doing much more self-damage than could ever have been accomplished by those external malevolent forces. I have seen no evidence that this type of behavior has increased our security in any way at all.
We seem to be fucking ourselves quite fine without any help from others.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "laws of war".
The only reason war is acceptable is because we've put rules and laws in place that make the wholesale slaughter of "them" justifiable because it was done "humanely".
Leaders want these rules because it allows them to expend citizens at no cost to themselves.
Disregard the rules completely, and you have a war that no one wants.
Shouldn't that be the point?
Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Informative)
“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).
The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.
Authority to Detain
The President has unquestioned authority to detain enemy combatants, including those who are U.S. citizens, during wartime. See, e.g., Quirin, 317 U.S. at 31, 37 (1942); Colepaugh v. Looney, 235 F. 2d 429, 432 (10th Cir. 1956); In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (9th Cir. 1946). The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed this proposition. See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 296 F.3d 278, 281, 283 (4th Cir. 2002). The authority to detain enemy combatants flows primarily from Article II of the Constitution. In the current conflict, the President’s authority is bolstered by Congress’s Joint Resolution of September 18, 2001, which authorized “the President . . . to use all necessary and appropriate force” against al Qaida and against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines” committed or aided in the September 11 attacks.” Pub. L. No. 107-40, 2(a), 115 Stat. 224 (2001) (emphasis added). This congressional action clearly triggers (if any trigger were necessary) the President’s traditional authority to detain enemy combatants as Commander in Chief.
Presidents (and their delegates) have detained enemy combatants in every major conflict in the Nation’s history, including recent conflicts such as the Gulf, Vietnam, and Korean wars. During World War II, the United States detained hundreds of thousands of POWs in the United States (some of whom were U.S. citizens) without trial or counsel. Then as now, the purposes of detaining enemy combatants during wartime are, among other things, to gather intelligence and to ensure that detainees do not return to assist the enemy.
Detainee Rights
All of the detainees are unlawful combatants and thus do not as a matter of law receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. However, the United States armed forces are treating, and will continue to treat, all enemy combatants humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949. Among many other things, this means that they receive: three meals a day that meet Muslim dietary laws; medical care; clothing and shoes; shelter; showers; soap and toilet articles; the opportunity to worship; the means to send mail and receive mail, subject to security screening; and the ability to receive packages of food and clothing, also subject to security screening. In addition, the International Committee of the Red Cross has visited and will continue to visit the detainees privately. The detainees will be permitted to raise concerns about their conditions, and we will attempt to address those concerns consistent with security.
The non-citizen detainees in Guantanamo have no right to habeas corpus relief in U.S. courts. See, e.g., Coalition of Clergy v. Bush, 189 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2002), affirmed on other grounds, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23705 (9th Cir. Nov. 18, 2002). As noted above, however, we have permitted the ICRC access to the detainees, and we have notified each detainee’s country of origin that the detainee is in DoD control.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Second you prove the case because it says the geneva convention does not recognize terrorist organizations from being protected by ANY RIGHTS.
Wow. You apparently believe the world will end in 2012 because the Mayan calendar ends there too.
Never mind that the reason the calendar doesn't say anything about 2013 is the same reason the modern 2009 calendar doesn't say anything about 2010.
In other words - the geneva convention does NOT say 'terrorist have no rights' it just says they don't get POW rights, which means they get the default set of rights which is that of civilians.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
there are no criminals only potential terrorists.
first time through I read that wrong
there are no criminals only potential tourists.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How's that Hopey Changey thing going for ya?
Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is pretty much the opposite of what the founders of the country had in mind. They wanted the people to have the x-ray glasses. You know Jefferson's saying about who fears whom and how the difference is that between liberty and tyranny...
Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
They also warned us against foreign entanglements but we stopped listening to that particular piece of advice a long time ago. Now we have a standing army and military-industrial complex that sucks up a large portion of our GDP while giving a large percentage of the world ample reason to hate us.
Re:I am shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)
It was much easier, relatively speaking, for the United States to conceive of avoiding foreign entanglements at the end of the 18th century than it was to become even by the time of the Civil War. By WWI, the US's economic interests were so broad that the notion of avoiding entanglements became practically meaningless (the US entered WWI because of unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans, which was a direct threat to US interests). By WWII, the notion that the US could hold itself above the ever-growing fray become utterly untenable. Does anybody for a moment believe that the US national interest would have been served by a fascist alliance of powers that covered much of the Old World? How long would the US as it stood have survived such a thing? Then came the Soviets, which were a direct threat in every possible way to the United States.
To be honest, I'm not even really all that sure that Washington's warning meant all that much in the 18th century. I understand where he was coming from, to be sure, and I think everyone sort of had this vision of the United States as a peaceful trading power, a sort of politically liberalized version of Great Britain. But it was simply an untenable notion in a world rapidly shrinking and with empires falling and being formed and the old order collapsing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anything the founding fathers said sacred anymore?
Should it be? Why not debate issues themselves instead of wasting time reinterpreting what some guys though about the issue a couple of hundred years ago in situations that were very different to those we live in today?
Re:I am shocked! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If it's such good advice then why does it matter who said it?
The desire to have no standing army (and even opposition to a full time police force) contributed largely to support of the 2nd amendment, this is no longer relevant. I'm not saying i'm for/against gun control just that the 2nd amendment was written in completely different circumstances. Concepts such as, social security, workers rights, a standing army, a full time police force, universal education, an agency to control use of highways, etc, were
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By not contradicting his appointee's position, he's supporting it.
That depends on whether he's even aware of what's happening. He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)
He's one guy, and bureaucracy can't keep you up to date on everything.
Interesting. So in the space of just 50 years we've gone from "The buck stops here" to "I can't possibly be expected to know about EVERYTHING that my appointee's are up to"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Misleading headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it isn't like Bush personally performed warrantless searches on drug dealers under the Patriot Act. However, he can still be held accountable for the actions of his administration. The president sets the tone for the administration, and if he really wanted to send a message that stuff like this was not acceptable he could do so.
The president can't be in all places in all times. However, he governs the largest budget on the entire planet, which means he can hire people to be in places for him. This subordinate was one of those people, and the people he chooses reflect on him...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RIghts to choose health care option under attack. RIght to keep our hard earned money under attack for increased federal debt. Private Enterprise under attack from TARP and limits on pay.
Uh. You might as well claim a "right to being rich" under attack. I mean, there's no universal accepted notion of economic rights, and the very nature of these rights is that if you gain any of these so called "rights", somebody else has to pay for it.
Take your health care example. Right to choose health care option, or right to health care? I think only in the USA would anybody think the former is a God given right, while the latter is an evil communist idea.
Note that I'm obviously not an American, and I d
Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are obvious ways in which Bush and Obama differ. But I think the difference is only substantial if you think the reason you're being stripped of your rights is more important than the fact that you are being stripped of your rights.
In the ways that matter, Obama is no change for the better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is it a lot less? We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq. We're only giving real trials to a handful of the people at Guantanamo, the rest are either getting military tribunals or will rot forever with no charges being brought. We're still getting our phones and email tapped without a warrant. What bad idea of Bush's has Obama actually changed so far?
The obsession with more government power (Score:3, Insightful)
What the current government want so far:
The current government is so power-crazy that it's become suicidal in its attempts to speed through legislation over half the country opposes, regardless of how it's going to affect the 2010 elections. You'
Re:The obsession with more government power (Score:5, Informative)
Go research the New Deal and how many people the gov't employed in the 30's to ease the depression,
None of which actually worked. The economy didn't really recover until the US entered WW2, pulling millions of men out of the job market and putting them in uniform. The post-war boom owed more to the fact that the rest of the world laid in ruins while the US infrastructure and economy was virtually untouched.
Re:The obsession with more government power (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't really help a lot 'til WW2. So essentially we'd need another war... Oh wait, no doesn't work. We already have two and still nothing gets better.
Damn, the old tricks don't work anymore. Guess their solution is to start a few more wars. I mean, it was good in earlier days and, well, given inflation, you probably just need MORE.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is network neutrality supposed to be scary?
Media-ownership caps so that a small handful of corporations aren't controlling broadcast news?
Kind of like how if we had limited the size of big banks (and their insurers), we might have been able to let capitalism run its course instead of Bush and Obama having to bail them out for being "too big"?
Public broadcasting is scary? Do PBS, NPR, and the BBC make you quake in your boots? Seriously?
Minority ownership sounds like racism, maybe thats the one you think is
Revolutions change things... (Score:5, Insightful)
... but only for a while until the money-changers sneak back into the temple. That's why you have to have them periodically, like defragging and virus-scanning your hard drive. We seem to have fallen behind on the schedule... we haven't had a decent game-changing revolution in a while, have we? Now we have a bunch of people muttering "let them eat cake" again. Does anyone still know how to make guillotines? We'll need quite a few this time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, let's look at two of the biggest revolutions in the (more or less) recent history, the French one from 1789 and the Russian one from 1917. In both cases you see that you need two things for such a feat to work: People who are willing to fight and if necessary die for their conviction, actually not just "some" people but a sizable portion of the population. And second, you need the support of the army, or at the very least you need them to hold still and ignore orders to shoot you.
I doubt we'll get to
Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate to say it but I was hopeful too. Maybe not enough to vote for him, but I knew my candidate wasn't going to win anyway... still voted for him though.
Obama is a historical icon, however. He was the first non-white president of the United States of America. And while some might say he is starting out "well enough" I can't say that he is. He has definitely reversed himself on many of his promises and intentions without so much as any sort of explanation on the matter. What he is doing will likely result in a big change in government in the next major election cycle and he may not even be the next Democratic presidential candidate if the Democrats hope to remain significant. I doubt people will be so quick to forget the reasons they moved away from the Republicans the last go around and so I think third parties will really make an emergence in the NEXT election cycle.
Re:I am shocked! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not so optimistic. I lost faith in people and especially their interest in politics long ago. An increasing number of people see voting as their "duty", much like some sort of other chore that must be done, so they simply let others decide for them. Or they simply vote the same way they always voted because it was good then and has to be good now.
Most can't even imagine a third party, let alone vote for it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They may not get all that much credit. If GDP improves but the unemployment rate is still high, angry eyes will still be upon them. Recent government forecasts of reasonably strong increases in GDP next year have also said that unemployment rates would probably remain flat, and that has caused a great deal of consternation. People are willing to have a little less recovery if it means a little better employment, as it's hard to be happy with where the country will be in two or three years when it's not c
In fact here's the whole quote, in context. (Score:3, Informative)
Read the whole thing for yourself, or watch the f
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I never called you un-American, I just gave you an example of the countries that actually have a flat tax. In the market place of countries,
So he's a politician (Score:3, Insightful)
and as such is just like pretty much all of the others. The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't vote FOR politicians in this country; we vote AGAINST "the other guy", and are left to deal with the results.
Could anyone here have honestly voted for McCain with Palin on the ticket as well?
Re: (Score:2)
In response to your sig: yes, I noticed! We are not the only ones! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice how people remember posters by their sigs and not their names?
What? You have names?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Fox news are partisan hacks!!" and the "Rush Limbaugh is a partisan hack!!"
Well when he's right, he's right.
"Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."
All politicians keep score.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The focus on Rush Limbaugh is absurd. I know why the Democrats are doing it -- it's great for fund-raising and riling up the base -- but it completely misses the point. If you listen to the White House political hacks you'd think that Rush Limbaugh speaks for the entire Republican Party.
Does he now? Rush Limbaugh and his ilk couldn't even keep John McCain from winning the South Carolina primary. If they don't have the power to prevent a candidate that they despise from winning in the reddest of the red
Re:So he's a politician (Score:4, Insightful)
What's a thug? Somebody who uses violence and intimidation to get his way. (In the case of politics, it's not necessarily physical violence.) Things like flag@whitehouse.gov and the "Fox news are partisan hacks!!" and the "Rush Limbaugh is a partisan hack!!" and such diversions from the white house press office. If administration bullying doesn't count for some reason, look back to April and Obama's remarks to Rep. DeFazio (a Democrat who voted against the stimulus): "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother."
Now hurry up and mod me Troll again, you partisan hacks.
The right wing has fought dirty in this manner for decades now. Finally a democratic administration manages to fumble the same boxing gloves onto their hands and you proclaim it heresy, as if it's something new and savage.
The right was the one which chose to go below the belt. The democrats tried to play it "honorably" for decades and continued to lose big. I still don't think they're doing nearly as good a job as republicans at playing dirty with political traps, fallacy, selective truth, and outright fabrication, but even standing up and saying "just wait one second!" is a start.
Re:So he's a politician (Score:4, Insightful)
I see. Violence and intimidation. Minus the violence...
Tell that to Kenneth Gladney who got beat up by Obama's SEIU pals.
Re:So he's a politician (Score:5, Insightful)
I voted for Obama because of Palin. I figure that with the stresses of Presidency, there would have been an 85% chance of McCain having to be hospitalized while in office for an extended period of time, and a not insignificant chance of him dying from a heart attack, stroke, or other catastrophe. With Obama, the worst case is a small chance of getting shot by a white supremacist or something. So weighing a small chance of Biden as President versus an 85% chance of Palin as President, I made the only choice that didn't feel like Russian roulette.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here, Obama is pretty much giving the finger to his supporters who expected him to respect civil liberties.)
Nobody with half a brain should have expected that Obama would respect civil liberties. This is the guy whose own platform called for the ban of so-called "assault weapons". It was on his campaign webpage and it was on the White House's webpage until they took it down. I don't see how you can claim to support civil liberties while simultaneously seeking to infringe on the 2nd amendment rights of every law abiding American citizen.
Guns aren't your thing? Well, there's always his chickenshit reversal on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So how about respecting the established bankruptcy code rather than the Executive Branch picking winners and losers? If the bankruptcy code had been followed the union contracts would have been voided and the secured creditors (i.e: bondholders) would have come before them when it came time to split up the remaining assets.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So he's a politician (Score:5, Insightful)
Could anyone here have honestly voted for McCain with Palin on the ticket as well?
I did. While I'm sure this locks in my nomination for the Slashdotter special needs award, it remains that McCain and Palin, while they talk scary, were more consistent and trustworthy than the Democrat team. Obama had already backtracked on promises ("positions" he calls them) particularly FISA and was throwing out promises that simply didn't make sense (we'll reduce health care costs by increasing costs through adding universal health care), hung around associates that made the Republican team look like a paragon of sanity, and had some Big Plans that would involve gutting the US economy for some sort of nebulous socialist gain.
Well, all I can say is that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have not disappointed me. We may be in the "death spiral" of US history, but at least we're protected from the perils of incandescent light bulbs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Says the anonymous coward.
Fitting I suppose.
Re:So he's a politician (Score:5, Insightful)
A vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an alternative: emigrate. That's what I did. Haven't looked back. To hell with the false dichotomy that is US politics. To hell with platitude-quoting sub-intellectual pundits and the morons who follow them. Here's one rat who realized the ship was sinking.
Re:So he's a politician (Score:5, Insightful)
The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.
Not really. The question HERE is whether the article writer has a shred of journalistic integrity at all.
Seriously, first read the article and then post. I doubt Obama is even slightly involved beyond appointing key person who is involved to a broad role of which 'computer privacy law' is a drop in the bucket. This headline is as absurd as printing 'Obama wants to banish ketchup based on an incident where the secretary of defense complained there was too much ketchup on their McDonalds cheeseburger.
Second, the dispute here is pretty benign. Federal investigators had a WARRANT to search a PC for evidence of steriod use for a handful of players, and uncovered evidence of some hundred other players using steroids in the same folder and files as the information for the players in question. The dispute is whether they should be allowed to use the additional evidence of the additional crime.
The court ruled no, citing that the investigators 'actively scrolled the excel spreadsheet past the names of the players in question'. Come on. Even I, a privacy advocate, don't see anything wrong with what the agents did. I don't even think its wrong to admit this as evidence. I'd argue against being able to search inside every document, hack encrypted files, ... but they found evidence of additional instances of the same crime in the same files and folders that their warrant covered.
Clearly this ruling probably should be overturned. I don't think agents should be given carte blanche to search your entire PC and charge you with unrelated crimes. But there is probably some middle ground where if they are investing the PC for evidence you ripped off the Smiths with ScamX, and they find evidence in the same file you that also ripped off the Jones... that SHOULD be allowed.
But bottom line, declaring that Obama "wants" anything at all with respect to this case is absurd.
Re:So he's a politician (Score:4, Insightful)
The question isn't whether he's everything the advertising billed him as, it's whether he was a better choice than the alternative.
Not really. The question HERE is whether the article writer has a shred of journalistic integrity at all.
Seriously, first read the article and then post. I doubt Obama is even slightly involved beyond appointing key person who is involved to a broad role of which 'computer privacy law' is a drop in the bucket. This headline is as absurd as printing 'Obama wants to banish ketchup based on an incident where the secretary of defense complained there was too much ketchup on their McDonalds cheeseburger.
Second, the dispute here is pretty benign. Federal investigators had a WARRANT to search a PC for evidence of steriod use for a handful of players, and uncovered evidence of some hundred other players using steroids in the same folder and files as the information for the players in question. The dispute is whether they should be allowed to use the additional evidence of the additional crime.
The court ruled no, citing that the investigators 'actively scrolled the excel spreadsheet past the names of the players in question'. Come on. Even I, a privacy advocate, don't see anything wrong with what the agents did. I don't even think its wrong to admit this as evidence. I'd argue against being able to search inside every document, hack encrypted files, ... but they found evidence of additional instances of the same crime in the same files and folders that their warrant covered.
Clearly this ruling probably should be overturned. I don't think agents should be given carte blanche to search your entire PC and charge you with unrelated crimes. But there is probably some middle ground where if they are investing the PC for evidence you ripped off the Smiths with ScamX, and they find evidence in the same file you that also ripped off the Jones... that SHOULD be allowed.
But bottom line, declaring that Obama "wants" anything at all with respect to this case is absurd.
Hmmm, using that logic we could also clear Bush of many of the accusations layed on him.Thus, it must be false logic.
Re:So he's a politician (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm, using that logic we could also clear Bush of many of the accusations layed on him.Thus, it must be false logic.
If you don't see a difference between Obama's team objecting to disallowing a mouse scroll and Bush going before the world claiming there were absolutely WMD's in Iraq, then there is no hope of anyone ever talking any shred of logic to or with you.
Pay closer attention. (Score:5, Funny)
Pay attention closer next time. Obama wasn't saying "change", he was saying "chains."
Re:Pay closer attention. (Score:5, Insightful)
Fr0st Pist (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously... When will Americans realize that both parties have exactly the same goal: To control and manipulate everything that every citizen possesses or can produce - even thoughts/minds/beliefs - for their own gain alone.
Screw investing in gold - invest in lead and brass....
You sound like you're surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Same as the old boss, indeed. What amazes me is that we're still a two party system and that people continue to think that their vote matters.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't believe you got modded Troll instead of insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame him, he voted for Kodos!
Re:You sound like you're surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't believe you got modded Troll instead of insightful.
It's because I had something bad to say about The Anointed One.
See? Got modded down again.
Perhaps because talking about John Ashcroft is a wee bit off topic?
Also, the last post was a troll, pure and simple. No one, that I know of at least, thinks Obama is "anointed" or any such crap, and most everyone I know is pretty far left. Actually, the further left you are, the more disappointed with Obama you probably are. Most people probably only voted for Obama because they were sick of the right, and deathly afraid of McCain/Palin, and not because he is some special super-politician who can save us from all our ills.
In regards to your first post, it perhaps shouldn't be modded as a troll, but perhaps as "woohoo cliche hip cynicism!" Your vote as an individual counts as much as anyone else's, no, it will never actually count beyond your actual worth though. Now if you organized like minded people, and worked to convince others that your opinion was worthy, then that WOULD count more. But just whinging that your vote doesn't count because a majority of voters don't share your opinion and voted otherwise, thats just silly. The problem with America is that everyone's vote counts, and a vast majority of American's are uninformed idiots, or rabidly idealistic and naive. And worse, everyone "knows better" than everyone else, and would like to impose their views on the rest of us "for their own good".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're not much of a two party system when lobbyists buy up both sides of the aisle. More of a one-party system that swings between the radical and not so radical wings.
2 Party (Score:5, Insightful)
Some would argue that since we get the same basic results from either party, we really have a one party system and its all smoke and mirrors between the 2.
Re: (Score:2)
Same as the old boss, indeed. What amazes me is that we're still a two party system and that people continue to think that their vote matters.
What amazes me is that people still think it's really a two party system.
Re:You sound like you're surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You sound like you're surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
If the guy I voted for won, I would rag on his ass every day and I would call out all the dumb shit he did and totally ignore the good shit he did because it's his job. Let's get politicians scared of citizens.
If you had your way I imagine no one in their right mind would then go into politics. Under your solution - treat someone like dirt whether or not they do a good job - there is no longer an incentive to do a good job. Though it's hard to imagine, I think things would get much much worse. Only the scum of the earth would do the job and they'd find every possible way to benefit from the "ungrateful citizens". Even moreso than now.
Okay, that's enough. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Okay, that's enough. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is how checks and balances work. It should be easy for the president to make something not happen. Clinton did that with the budget. He made the government shut down because Congress wouldn't give him a budget he liked. He made the government not happen. And there was nothing Congress could do, other than whine about how it was Clinton's fault they c
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The healtcare bill that is now underway (well, somewhat at leas
translation loud and clear (Score:4, Insightful)
I would regard it as a credible difference if, when you asked Obama the reason, he gave an intelligible answer, regardless of whether the answer was one you liked or not.
What I'd like to see from Obama is saying to his insiders, "OK, I see why you want this and I'll back you on it, but you're going to have to explain yourself to the public a lot better than you used to".
That's what I hated most about Bush, how entitled he felt about operating in the shadows. From a leadership perspective, bad policy is often better than no policy. I accept mistakes. The problem was that the little cretin never stood up for his reasons. That old excuse "national security" sounds exactly the same whether you pronounce it in English, Chinese, or North Korean.
It's the surrounding discussion that makes the difference.
Well of course he does (Score:2)
He is with the federal government.
Asinine example (Score:5, Insightful)
So, because a warrant won't let them go on a fishing expedition for other crimes, they don't pursue the crimes that they do know about? That's like a kid saying: "If you don't play by my rules, I'll take my ball away".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There needs to be some method of having a firewall where you can have an independent group of investigators go through the siezed evidence and produce a report. Then a judge screens that report before it is handed to the primary team prosecuting the crime. The two groups otherwise don't communicate.
Then if they get a warrant for more info from the original source they can go back and ask for more data. There would be no "fruit of the poisoned tree" or anything like that since nobody on the team requestin
Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with trying to apply old precedents to this matter is that digital databases can be so much vaster than any real place being searched. If the cops have a warrant to search the safe in someone's house for something illegal, they aren't allowed to go search the cupboards. Only if the evidence is in plain sight as they go about their business are they allowed to use it.
This is very relevant. What if the cops bust in to your house looking for marijuana in your safe, based on an anonymous tip, and don't find anything? Maybe they find you've stored chemicals in your kitchen cabinets in violation of federal law for storage, or maybe you've got some prescription med bottles for a person who is no longer living in the house. If the cops are allowed to rifle through everything a private citizen owns, and they get creative, they can almost certainly find SOMETHING to charge you with. Their perspective is "since you were accused, you must be guilty of SOMETHING...let's find what it is because I don't want to go back to the station empty handed"
Well, now, if suppose you were a credit bureau like Equifax. If the cops had the authority to search your database to get someone's credit record in order to prove illegal activity, they could search the records of every citizen in the united states because those records are in "plain sight" within the database! Bet they could find SOMETHING if they are allowed to basically open an investigation against every citizen of the country.
And for those arguing "if we're soft on crime, we're letting teh criminals win". The U.S. has already declared and imprisoned more of its citizens for being 'criminals' than any other nation on earth as a % of population. Now, I'm not saying that a large percentage of those people are innocent, just that this extreme level of imprisonment is not an appropriate way for society to deal with those who misbehave. (I think the percentage of innocent people is probably between 3 and 10 percent)
from TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
This... doesn't actually sound that objectionable. Scrolling to the right breaks the Fourth Amendment?
transparency as advertised (Score:3, Funny)
Hasn't he been saying that he's into transparency this whole time? What? Did you guys think it was a one way street? We're lucky there aren't webcams in all our bathrooms.
Hope/Change? (Score:5, Insightful)
Happy now? This is what you all wanted... For the past decade I've read post after post after post about Bush spending too much or having too tight an iron fist on privacy issues.
Well, you all voted for change...
Now you have the highest spending EVER. Now you can see the beginning of security corruption as well. At least Bush had a war to justify his need to breach privacy. Obama has no legitimate reason and yet he's going to do it.
When are you all going to learn that government is inherently bad; that it is inherently corrupt. And while there are a couple of functions it should provide to maintain civilization, the smaller we keep it the better... for all of us.
Re:Hope/Change? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why the backpedal? If government is inherently bad, then it can't be needed at all.
Unless, that is, somewhere deep down, you do realize that statement is ludicrous. If we can use government to maintain civilization, then we can use it to improve daily life, prevent injustice, and all the other stuff that would make things better.
In short, when your computer is infected with malware, the solution is not to just stop using computers, it's to clean the computer up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, we pretty much are at 20% unemployment:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/34040009 [cnbc.com]
17.5%. And getting closer every day. The stimulus spending is stealing future wealth to produce fake wealth today. It's stealing real savings today (which creates real wealth and investment) to produce fake wealth tomorrow.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I am absolutely certain you don't understand quantum mechanics. This leads me to believe you also don't understand economics.
We need more discipline in public office (Score:5, Insightful)
They all know their jobs and the limits of their office and mission. For various reasons, both good and bad, they seek more power and expansion of current power. I hold that there was great wisdom in the limiting of those powers from the very beginning. That wisdom was established by previous abuses of such overreaching powers of the previous government the founding fathers were living under. They knew where all the government power abuses lead to because they had lived with those abuses until they could tolerate it no longer. This is how the U.S. Revolution began!
The people in various offices seek to repeat those same abuses by seeking to go beyond the limits that were artfully and successfully crafted by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. They may have good intentions, but the evils that can result from it outweighs the benefit of prosecuting one or two more child rapists. And yes, I said it. Protecting the constitution is FAR more important than protecting children from rapists.
Shocking: another legal issue beyond Slashdot (Score:3, Informative)
Once again the editors have demonstrated that, as much as geeks like to complain about lawyers not understanding technology, techies have far greater problems understanding legal issues.
I could go into a ton of detail as to the potential issues with the Ninth Circuit's approach, and the reasons why it makes sense for this case to continue through the process of judicial review. However, that would be redundant, because Orin Kerr, who's an expert on the topic, does an excellent job of doing it for me. Incidentally, it only took one Google search to pull up his analysis:
http://volokh.com/posts/1228354570.shtml [volokh.com]
Misleading Story (Score:5, Insightful)
The title of the story is, "Obama Wants Computer Privacy Ruling Overturned" except that the story has nothing to do with Obama and calling this the 'Obama Administration' is a bit of a stretch as well.
It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General. She is represents the US as a prosecutor for the Supreme Court. Isn't she just doing her job?
I don't understand how one person doing what they are suppose to be doing means Obama is against our rights. The connection just isn't there for me.
Re:Misleading Story (Score:4, Insightful)
It is Elena Kagan, not Obama. Her job is the United States Solicitor General.
She works for him. The actions of underlings reflect on the president just as they do for any previous president.
That does it. (Score:3, Funny)
im dropping my support for obama.