ACLU To Feds: Your 'Hacking Presents a Unique Threat To Individual Privacy' (arstechnica.com) 67
The American Civil Liberties Union, along with Privacy International, a similar organization based in the United Kingdom, have now sued 11 federal agencies, demanding records about how those agencies engage in what is often called "lawful hacking." From a report: The activist groups filed Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and nine others. None responded in a substantive way. "Law enforcement use of hacking presents a unique threat to individual privacy," the ACLU argues in its lawsuit, which was filed Friday in federal court in New York state. "Hacking can be used to obtain volumes of personal information about individuals that would never previously have been available to law enforcement."
ACLU on free speech: (Score:1)
*crickets*
Re:ACLU on free speech: (Score:5, Informative)
The ACLU absolutely does support actual free speech, but unfortunately for nazi faggots, that doesn't include their illegal and unsupportable hate screech
Bullcrap. The ACLU most certainly does defend hate speech [aclu.org], and they have specifically defended Nazis [aclu.org].
They are not the hypocrites that you claim they are.
Re:ACLU on free speech: (Score:4, Informative)
Bill you just conflated "hate speech" = a crime the ACLU does not legally support - with - "unpopular speech" by conservative (bigots) on campuses
No I didn't. Both "hate speech" and "unpopular speech" are constitutionally protected, and the ACLU supports your right to speak either.
The 1st Amendment doesn't say anything about "hate". What it does say is "no law" abridging speech.
They are not the same thing
Yes they are. Hate speech is only illegal if it is also unpopular. Nobody is going to arrest you for saying "I hate Nazis", because that is a popular viewpoint.
Probably the most odious example of hate speech was the Nazi march through a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Illinois. The ACLU defended their right to march and speak [aclu.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Hate speech is defined as incitement to violence, a crime.
Nonsense. Hate and violence are two different things. So where is your "definition"?
Merriam-Webster: Hate speech - speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people.
Wikipedia: Hate speech - speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Dictionary.com: Hate speech - Speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity,
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I believe you mean they "were previously not the hypocrites". Times have changed, and I don't believe you'll find an example of the ACLU coming to the defense of anyone using "hate speech" in 2018. Likely not 2017, for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Freedom of Speech is like Freedom of the Press in that he who owns the transport owns the freedom. If the transport does not belong to you, then the freedom does not belong to you.
Freedom of the Press belongs to he who owns the press.
Similarly Freedom of Speech belongs to he who owns the "transport" for the speech. Freedom of Speech claimants very often do not own the thing which is transporting the speech nor do they have a interest enforceable at all (such as the government owns it on their behalf).
That
Re: (Score:1)
LOL
You halfwit. That's the POINT.
You disagree with infowars and think it's trash.
You STILL defend the right to talk shit.
That's free speech.
That's NOT the ACLU
Re:ACLU on free speech: (Score:4, Interesting)
They're still big advocates of free speech. As long as it's not hate speech or speech that hurts someone's feelings.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As long as it's not hate speech or speech that hurts someone's feelings.
Bullcrap. From their own website [aclu.org]: The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.
Next time take a few seconds to check your facts before posting ignorant garbage.
Go yell bomb threats in the airport Bill. Try it (Score:1)
"The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content." = A website Lorem-slogan, IS NOT their actual policy or history, and certainly not the truth of the Constitutional protections.
You're conflating their website with the legal specifics. That's not going to prove anything. If you need to test this, go shout bomb threats in an airport and find out.
No one will defend you on 1st Amendment grounds from the FAA fine and/or imprisonment, because your oversimple underst
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I'm curious. When was the last time the ACLU defended free speech by conservatives? (Not Nazis, they are not conservatives - I mean center conservatives, as in don't want to bake a cake guys)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No doubt. Pulling out of Syria and Afghanistan RIGHT AFTER PUTIN SUGGESTED IT was kind of obvious also. Unfortunately for Trump, the special counsel isn't furloughed or delayed by the shutdown. They're working all winter lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Pulling out, what are you saying, the US should stay until Syria and Afghanistan are what totally knocked up, another series of baby terrorist organisation born to keep the forever war going. What the fuck are they doing in Syria in the first place, what problems have they ever solved in Afghanistan, the problem the US created in the first place and bragged about it. So destroy Afghanistan as a modern society and keep doing it there in after, why, what is the purpose, what problem is being solved. We all kn
Worse: No Non-Partizan Use (Score:2)
The ACLU Committed Suicide a Month Ago (Score:2)
https://www.theatlantic.com/id... [theatlantic.com]
When someone stands accused of sexual assault in criminal court, does the ACLU believe in the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard merely because that is what the Constitution requires, or because it is better to leave some guilty people unpunished than to punish many innocents? “The old-school ACLU knew there was no contradiction between defending due process and ‘supporting survivors,’” David French writes [nationalreview.com]. “Indeed, it was through
hypocrisy (Score:2)
I read the summary of this article and read the previous summary and...
The US and the rest of the "free world" (such as it is) is bitching and moaning about APT10, a so-called hacking collective. Whilst the "free world" goes on hacking sprees against their own citizens (five-eyes, etc).
It's not about catching criminals (the ACLU is falling into the semantics trap). It's about "instant dossiers" on people who might upset "the system" - i.e., the incumbent powers that be. Everyone has skeletons, and withou
Hacking without permission is always a problem (Score:2)
Permission of the target that is. For one thing, all reasonable standards of evidence go out the window. That invites planting evidence. And since the feds are in no way morally superior to other people (if anything, they are significantly less moral), it will happen and in many cases the victim will not be able to mount an effective defense. The second problem is that people that need to fear being hacked in this way (and everybody not perfectly boring needs to) will self-censor. That is the death of civil
Re: (Score:2)
When nobody understands what is collected and how, then groups been watched look inwards for informats.
All the US gov had to do was keep using parallel construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and random "adware" and "malware".
Make the user click a link, open an unexpected document from a "friends" email and click on something.
Make a browser connect in an unex