December 16, 2013

District Court Judge Grants Injunction Against NSA's Data-Collection, Finding Suit Will "Likely" Result In Finding that Program is Unconstitutional"
— Ace

While he granted the injunction, he himself placed it on hold, awaiting the outcome of an appeal.

A federal judge ruled Monday that the National Security AgencyÂ’s bulk collection of phone records violates the ConstitutionÂ’s ban on unreasonable searches, but put his decision on hold pending a near-certain government appeal.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon granted a preliminary injunction sought by plaintiffs Larry Klayman and Charles Strange, concluding they were likely to prevail in their constitutional challenge. Leon, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled Monday that the two men are likely to be able to show that their privacy interests outweigh the governmentÂ’s interest in collecting the data. Leon says that means that massive collection program is an unreasonable search under the ConstitutionÂ’s Fourth Amendment.

...

[I]n his a 68-page, heavily footnoted opinion, Leon concluded that the government didn’t cite a single instance in which the program “actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack.”

Some analysis from AllahPundit.

The judge found that a previous 1970s ruling did not control here, because of something I keep talking about: Changes in the power of technology to search and compare bits of data. Fifty years ago the police had a very limited ability to utilize your fingerprints record to harm you. If you became a suspect in a case -- and only in that case -- they could painstakingly compare your fingerprints to those found at a crime scene using slow, precious human labor resources.

There were serious practical limits on what could be done with citizen data held in government files. Yes, the government could use that data to put people in jail, but analysis and comparison was a labor intensive process that at least served as a naturally-existing limiting principle on government intrusion: Sure, the government could search your personally-identifying data to connect you with a crime, but, as a practical matter, it was so time-consuming to do so that they generally would not do so, not unless they had a strong suspicion you were actually a culprit.

They wouldn't just compare every fingerprint on file with every fingerprint found at unsolved crime scenes, after all.

Well, today, they can -- and do -- actually do that. So there is no longer any practical limitation on the government's ability to use your DNA to connect you with unknown DNA found at a crime. They can run everyone's DNA through the database with virtually no effort.

I exaggerate; there is some lab work needed to process the DNA and reduce it to a 13 allele "genetic fingerprint." Nevertheless, this can all be done fairly inexpensively, and running it through the database once reduced to a short code is very nearly cost-free.

But within the next ten years all of this will become entirely cost-free.

This is why I disagreed with the Supreme Court's reliance on an old precedent in claiming that the police can take a DNA sample from every single person arrested. Merely arrested, not convicted. They relied on a precedent established at the dawn of investigatory police science, that every arrestee's fingerprints may be collected and catalogued.

But way 'back then, there were natural limitations on the State's power to make use of such data which simply no longer exist. What would have been considered a silly hypothetical sci-fi objection back then -- "But what stops the state from merely searching these fingerprints against every fingerprint ever lifted at a crime scene?" -- is actual reality now.

We can't just treat precedent from the first half of the previous century as controlling, when obviously the world has changed a great deal since then.

Posted by: Ace at 01:06 PM | Comments (237)
Post contains 644 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Boned we are. Time for a reset?

Posted by: rickb223 at December 16, 2013 01:09 PM (FNtJ6)

2 How many divisions does this judge have?

Posted by: The NSA at December 16, 2013 01:09 PM (DrWcr)

3 I like it. Roomy. Fresh.

Posted by: garrett at December 16, 2013 01:09 PM (64xVq)

4 Clearly, it's a tax.

Posted by: toby928© makes jokes from the Phantom Zone at December 16, 2013 01:09 PM (evdj2)

5 Limitations on government power are for free citizens, not My subjects.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at December 16, 2013 01:09 PM (+H/11)

6 This will go down on your permanent record.

Posted by: wooga at December 16, 2013 01:09 PM (opN5B)

7 Doesn't matter.  They have already gotten away with it.  They will continue to collect information too because no one in this administration will stop them.

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at December 16, 2013 01:10 PM (jucos)

8 As happy as I am to see pushback against the Surveillance State, I also am confident the Surveillance State will constantly grow, especially after any horrible incident when the public will actually demand it grow.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at December 16, 2013 01:11 PM (ZPrif)

9

I wonder if the same precedent could be used to clamp down on the Government  getting hold of everybody's medical records as well.

 

I don't think all of those feminists are going to be too happy when they realize that Uncle Sugar now has the right to get all up in their lady business, now that he is the one paying for all of those services....

Posted by: Teresa in Fort Worth, TX (@Teresa_Koch) at December 16, 2013 01:11 PM (PZ6/M)

10 This shit is so easy.....

Posted by: David Hodges at December 16, 2013 01:11 PM (NXg/k)

11 Data must be kept on all you Kulaks

Posted by: Barack O'Stalin at December 16, 2013 01:11 PM (Pr6hk)

12 I'd note that your DNA limit is rapidly disappearing, while not their yet, I suspect soon (10 years) we'll see a fully automated inexpensive whole genome sequencing. That could then be run through a fairly quick gel simulator.

Posted by: tsrblke, PhD(c) (tablet) at December 16, 2013 01:11 PM (a8eFL)

13 A ruling is one thing, finding the power to enforce it is another entirely, especially when an unindicted felon is heading the DOJ.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at December 16, 2013 01:11 PM (hiFDo)

14 One of my problems with a federal database is that if courts, and juries, find it believable, nay, irrefutable, then framing the innocent is as easy as 1,2,3.

Posted by: toby928© makes jokes from the Phantom Zone at December 16, 2013 01:12 PM (evdj2)

15 Its about time. We have enough CSI type shows already -- they are going to start dipping into the catalogue... Happy Jack as the theme to CSI:YourMom'sBasement

Posted by: wooga at December 16, 2013 01:12 PM (opN5B)

16 We'll compromise: They can have the mass searches...if the language and logic is that non-patriarchial one from the previous post...

Posted by: Brother Cavil at December 16, 2013 01:12 PM (naUcP)

17 If you think like a State, it's not hard to predict an ever growing Surveillance State. Regardless of the form of government really and the stated ideals.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at December 16, 2013 01:13 PM (ZPrif)

18 The deuce you say.

Posted by: NCKate at December 16, 2013 01:13 PM (R2eVV)

19 So one has to ask how long after the ruling was posted did the judge get his call from the IRS?

Posted by: JEM at December 16, 2013 01:13 PM (o+SC1)

20
1.  They will not stop even if told by the courts to do so.

2. Somebody can help me out on the DNA thing, but if they have your DNA don't they have your parents and children partially too?

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 16, 2013 01:13 PM (MaP11)

21 Who is gonna stop us...  Who, that guy over there who is going to get audited tomorrow?  I don't think so.

Posted by: Barky McBamastain at December 16, 2013 01:13 PM (Pr6hk)

22 The government  took  my  footprints and handprints  without my permission.  I demand  restitution.   

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 01:13 PM (m2CN7)

23 Give the government and inch..........

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 01:14 PM (iuBG8)

24 It's ceased to be about crime or acts of war.  It's now largely about control of the populace.   IOW, The Matrix.

Posted by: pep at December 16, 2013 01:14 PM (6TB1Z)

25 Google's Robots are gonna take over the world anyway

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 01:14 PM (t3UFN)

26 Arrested for jaywalking.... Time for your anal probing and DNA cheek swab. Hopefully they keep them straight.

Posted by: wooga at December 16, 2013 01:14 PM (opN5B)

27 ThereÂ’s a major problem with such wide sweeps, too; even though the chance is extremely small that any one person will falsely match partial DNA found at a crime scene, the more people you run the test on, the bigger the probability that the person who matches is not the person who did it. For example, if thereÂ’s a one-in-ten million chance of a false positive, and you run all 310 million Americans, you will find 30 false positives along with the one who did it (or, more likely, 31 false positives without finding the illegal alien who did it).

Posted by: Paid for by Citizens for Clyde the Orangutan at December 16, 2013 01:16 PM (QF8uk)

28 25 Google's Robots are gonna take over the world anyway

I foresee a coming war between Google bots and Amazon quads.  Hie thee to thy basements, people.

Posted by: pep at December 16, 2013 01:16 PM (6TB1Z)

29

Even if the courts find this unConstitutional, who's going to listen?  This regime?  Please.

 

The genie is out of the bottle.

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 01:17 PM (iuBG8)

30 These are issues that I would expect every American citizen to give-a-shit about, and define the next election debate. Because I give a damn, a whole lot. Instead, it will end up being some MSM dialogue about 'binders of women'.

Posted by: Lace Wigs [/i] at December 16, 2013 01:17 PM (La+CV)

31 There are no government ideals, only Zuul!!

Posted by: Dana Barrett at December 16, 2013 01:18 PM (RFeQD)

32 I prefer to collect DNA the olde fashioned way, by sneaking into people's homes.

Posted by: Dr Spank at December 16, 2013 01:18 PM (xlX1p)

33 "We can't just treat precedent from the first half of the previous century as controlling, when obviously the world has changed a great deal since then. Posted by Ace at 05:06 PM Comments" Ah, the living and breathing constitution. Perhaps if they got the precedent right the first time it wouldn't be an issue today. There really was no constitutional grounds for mass fingerprint collection back in the day (even if it was only those arrested). Not beyond a reasonable search and seizure claim anyways. Great, procedurally it made it not so big a deal. But now it's a big deal, isn't it? And quite frankly if fingerprint collection of arrestees is constitutional, so is DNA collection. This is the kind of trouble we get ourselves into when we try to apply an ever changing society to the Constitution instead of the other way round. Fingerprint collecting should have never been allowed beyond those convicted of a crime (again, exception being reasonable search and seizure related to a specific crime).

Posted by: NotCoach at December 16, 2013 01:19 PM (rsudF)

34 'They're always after me precious bodily fluids!'

Posted by: Robert Reich at December 16, 2013 01:19 PM (64xVq)

35 I usually collect DNA in my mouth.

Posted by: Bawney Fwank at December 16, 2013 01:20 PM (jucos)

36 The ultimate end state is something I've predicted for years -- the ultimate Surveillance State will track and model every individual in the country, and ideally everyone on the entire planet. Big Data will model every single person and their data will be flagged when they deviate from predicted behavior. If you start buying unusual items or reading unusual websites. Statistical models will predict future illegal or aberrant behavior. This type of mass surveillance actually could stop many bad things. It could, of course, do much worse things. It's probably inevitable. The key is not just tracking everyone, but modeling everyone.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at December 16, 2013 01:20 PM (ZPrif)

37 They can test our emanations?

Posted by: garrett at December 16, 2013 01:20 PM (64xVq)

38 If it goes to the SC, Roberts will call it a tax

Posted by: Ncj at December 16, 2013 01:21 PM (8sFfo)

39 37 They can test our emanations? Posted by: garrett


When they can test our penumbras, we're screwed.

Posted by: Dr Spank at December 16, 2013 01:21 PM (xlX1p)

40 34 'They're always after me precious bodily fluids!' Posted by: Robert Reich

And follow the yellow brick road.

Posted by: Robert Reichkin at December 16, 2013 01:21 PM (6TB1Z)

41 There were serious practical limits on what could be done with citizen data held in government files.

I've no idea how to law this and it's a political trap in that sure as shit if we stop the NSA entirely some damn Tsjihadi will blow something up.

I'd really like to see the public vs. private enforced e.g. call records vs. content.

And some sense applied to the collection.
1. Keep the data at the collector e.g. the telcos and ISPs.
2. Query results only to NSA.
3. Queries reviewed by a separate court before running.

But Nooo, they keep vacuuming in everything, managing it with leaky 1/2 wits, and missing guys in plain sight who arrive with bright yellow FSB notes pinned to their jacket it with WARNING TSBOMBER .

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at December 16, 2013 01:21 PM (DL2i+)

42 They Stole my Aura

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at December 16, 2013 01:22 PM (jucos)

43 >>They can test our emanations? Big Toilet.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 16, 2013 01:22 PM (g1DWB)

44 This is the kind of trouble we get ourselves into when we try to apply an ever changing society to the Constitution instead of the other way round. Fingerprint collecting should have never been allowed beyond those convicted of a crime (again, exception being reasonable search and seizure related to a specific crime).

Posted by: NotCoach at December 16, 2013 05:19 PM (rsudF)

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------

 

 

Fingerprinting, blood-typing, DNA.  If it wasn't for those things OJ might have gotten away with murder.   Oh.........wait. 

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 01:22 PM (iuBG8)

45 The purpose of the Surveillance State and intrusive snooping is to control....us. Of course, we have "constitutional rights", that apparently can be trumped or trampled if the right justice is looking at it. The Main Stream Bullshit Media is in on this, of course, as they want to maintain their position in society. Corporatism replaces free-enterprise (well, at least semi-free, as is has been for my life) and stagnation follows. Any incorrect mind-thoughts or newspeak transgressions will be directly attributable to .....you. They will find a way to criminalize everyone, if needed. Nelson Mandela was thrilled to meet the Spice Girls in 1997. Imagine that. I bet that didn't come up at his funeral. True story.

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at December 16, 2013 01:23 PM (RFeQD)

46 I read an article somewhere recently that said DNA tests may not be conclusive.  Apparently, different areas of  our  bodies  may have different DNA.  I'm too lazy to Bing  it right now.

Posted by: Marmo at December 16, 2013 01:23 PM (QW+AD)

47 The key is not just tracking everyone, but modeling everyone. The threat of a Chilean Modeling is nothing to fear.

Posted by: garrett at December 16, 2013 01:23 PM (64xVq)

48
I'm going back to paper and pencil.  Where do we all meet to pass out comments around?

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 16, 2013 01:23 PM (MaP11)

49 The Constitution?  Never heard of it.

Posted by: Charlie Gibson at December 16, 2013 01:23 PM (Pr6hk)

50 What's all this then? Longish, red hairs all over the scene of the latest hobo killing. Round up the usual suspects, constable.

Posted by: Inspector Lookout of the Yard at December 16, 2013 01:24 PM (YQUIz)

51 because no one in this administration will stop them.

And you think some GOP administration will?  I think Not!

1984 is here to stay....baring an EMP.

Posted by: John C. Beale at December 16, 2013 01:24 PM (DPvCq)

52 We should relax and welcome our Chilean Model Overlords

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at December 16, 2013 01:24 PM (jucos)

53 They Stole my Aura Posted by: Truck Monkey

Kiss my aura . . . Dora . . .
M-M-M . . . it's real angora
Would y'all like some more-a?
Right here on the flora?
An' how 'bout you, Fauna?
Y'wanna?

-Frank Zappa

Posted by: pep at December 16, 2013 01:24 PM (6TB1Z)

54 Your analysis is all well and good, Ace...but isn't that exact same logic often cited by gun-control advocates, talking about how the Founding Fathers would never have allowed "assault weapons" to be in people's homes, bar rar rar?

Posted by: YourPoopyPants at December 16, 2013 01:24 PM (Y/HG5)

55 For example, if there's a one-in-ten million chance of a false positive, and you run all 310 million Americans, you will find 30 false positives along with the one who did it (or, more likely, 31 false positives without finding the illegal alien who did it). I remember my daughter calling me in near despair. The state of NJ insists on a test for CF at birth. Her doctor had called her and insisted she bring her newborn back for a second (confirming, and more accurate) test. I spent five minutes on the Interwebz and discovered there were 10 times as many false positives as accurate results. It did not console her. Only the nanny state could console/control her emotions. Think about that.

Posted by: Lace Wigs [/i] at December 16, 2013 01:25 PM (La+CV)

56 Even if you hate the GOP almost or as much as the donkey party, you have to root for them to take over the Senate and presidency. 

Not because they will actually do anything to stop abuses such as the NSAs (they won't, left to their own devices), but because the lefty progressives will suddenly remember how extremist these policies are, and demand they stop, and the media will provide a big microphone.

Sometimes you have to use your opponents strengths to your own advantage.

Posted by: Mayday at December 16, 2013 01:25 PM (eHc+1)

57 Federal officials abusing their power?  Unpossible.

Posted by: David Koresh at December 16, 2013 01:25 PM (Pr6hk)

58 Our current Administration has shown itself to have no compunction about perjury and no fear of prosecution. Why should it given that it's not like the lies were for important things, like Kevin Trudeau's weight loss infomercials. Court rulings don't matter if you don't follow them.

Posted by: ejo at December 16, 2013 01:25 PM (GXvSO)

59 I do not avoid the Feds, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.

Posted by: toby928© makes jokes from the Phantom Zone at December 16, 2013 01:27 PM (evdj2)

60 Once the politicians took one of their advisors for a midnight stroll in the park, did you think your civil liberties weren't far behind.

Posted by: Vince Foster at December 16, 2013 01:27 PM (Pr6hk)

61 Nelson Mandela was thrilled to meet the Spice Girls in 1997. Imagine that. I bet that didn't come up at his funeral.

True story.

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at December 16, 2013 05:23 PM (RFeQD)


See?  That's why I was acting like a tween girl.  This time, at least.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama (High Crimes and Misdemeanors Spice) at December 16, 2013 01:28 PM (+H/11)

62 Even if you hate the GOP almost or as much as the donkey party, you have to root for them to take over the Senate and presidency.

I just wrote something nasty on a solicitation from Reince Priebus and will send it back tomorrow.  Included was a question as to whether they really wanted to take money from someone ridiculous (Boehner) or who held horrific views on immigration (Boehner).  I really hope these people wake the hell up before it's too late.  I am not optimistic.

Posted by: pep at December 16, 2013 01:28 PM (6TB1Z)

63 Not because they will actually do anything to stop abuses such as the NSAs (they won't, left to their own devices), but because the lefty progressives will suddenly remember how extremist these policies are, and demand they stop, and the media will provide a big microphone.

Sometimes you have to use your opponents strengths to your own advantage.

Posted by: Mayday at December 16, 2013 05:25 PM (eHc+1)


----


Word.   Remember how agitated they were when we were listening to OVERSEAS calls from terrorists and looking at library cards????


Now.... everything is being hoovered up, wiretaps placed on journalists and journalist families, and the IRS is sicced on political opponents.... and the left goes oddly silent. 

Posted by: fixerupper at December 16, 2013 01:28 PM (nELVU)

64 HOW did no one inform our dear leader about these transgressions?

Posted by: Elizabeth Warren at December 16, 2013 01:29 PM (Pr6hk)

65 #58 ejo

 Court rulings don't matter if you don't follow them.

That's true, and law-breaking doesn't matter when you have a corrupt and ideological DOJ that will not prosecute  the  crimes  of  your administration.

Posted by: Marmo at December 16, 2013 01:29 PM (QW+AD)

66 Where da white women at?

Posted by: BHO, walking caricature at December 16, 2013 01:29 PM (6TB1Z)

67 Are you Peruvia Midget Porn?
I am looking for Peruvia Midget Porn.

Posted by: Google-bot at December 16, 2013 01:30 PM (YQUIz)

68  Your analysis is all well and good, Ace...but isn't that exact same logic often cited by gun-control advocates, talking about how the Founding Fathers would never have allowed "assault weapons" to be in people's homes, bar rar rar?

Posted by: YourPoopyPants at December 16, 2013 05:24 PM (Y/HG5)

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

This is exactly the same logic.  The Constitution was written for all these "little things"  as much as it was for the "big things".

 

There should have, at least, been some kind of judiciary intervention written into the fingerprint law.  A right to appeal them being taken instead of giving cops carte blanche in collecting them.

 

So what do we have now.  Police in TX that feel they have carte blanche in collecting DNA samples anytime and anywhere. 

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 01:30 PM (iuBG8)

69 Good afternoon my nails.

Posted by: Government Hammer at December 16, 2013 01:31 PM (Pr6hk)

70 These are issues that I would expect every American citizen to give-a-shit about, and define the next election debate. Because I give a damn, a whole lot.

Serious question: Why?

I'm not defending the actions of the NSA here, but we're talking about automated collection of the same info the phone company keeps.  Which number called which other number, when, and for how long.

Of all the things to give a damn about, I don't see why this would be especially high on the list of concerns.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 01:32 PM (SY2Kh)

71 Does this affect my Obamaphone minutes?  No?  Bye.

Posted by: Low Information Voter at December 16, 2013 01:33 PM (Pr6hk)

72 ** squirt **

Posted by: Tony W. at December 16, 2013 01:33 PM (SWG2P)

73 I AM THE LAW

Posted by: JUDGE HUSSEIN at December 16, 2013 01:33 PM (4/o9U)

74 Jurisdiction? As an American citizen, you don't have any. Your jurisdiction is what I say it is, Mr. Grease To My Tread Gears.

Posted by: SCOTUS at December 16, 2013 01:34 PM (eHIJJ)

75 So what do we have now. Police in TX that feel they have carte blanche in collecting DNA samples anytime and anywhere.

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 05:30 PM (iuBG


Come for the scenery, stay for the multiple anal probes by officers of the "law".


Posted by: Hidalgo County, New Mexico at December 16, 2013 01:34 PM (+H/11)

76 The Constitution is not the hill to fight on.

Posted by: Mitch McConnell at December 16, 2013 01:34 PM (Pr6hk)

77  everything is being hoovered up, wiretaps placed on journalists and journalist families, and the IRS is sicced on political opponents.... and the left goes oddly silent.

Posted by: fixerupper at December 16, 2013 05:28 PM (nELVU)

_________________

Not only silent but with a nod showing tacit approval.  Richard Nixon had articles of Impeachment drawn up on him for THINKING of using the IRS to go after political opponents.  The difference between the parties is stark. 

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at December 16, 2013 01:34 PM (jucos)

78 Your analysis is all well and good, Ace...but isn't that exact same logic often cited by gun-control advocates, talking about how the Founding Fathers would never have allowed "assault weapons" to be in people's homes, bar rar rar?

Posted by: YourPoopyPants at December 16, 2013 05:24 PM (Y/HG5)

 

No because the Fourth amendment is clear just like the Second amendment is clear. 

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 01:36 PM (m2CN7)

79 No because the Fourth amendment is clear just like the Second amendment is clear.

Except that the Fourth Amendment isn't particularly clear.  Prohibition against "unreasonable" search and seizure necessarily leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 01:39 PM (SY2Kh)

80 AR-15's and the ilk are 'modular firearms'

Posted by: phreshone at December 16, 2013 01:39 PM (Pr6hk)

81 And isn't the Obama Admin still in contempt of Court over drilling in the Gulf?

Posted by: Romeo13 at December 16, 2013 01:40 PM (lZBBB)

82 I'm not defending the actions of the NSA here, but we're talking about automated collection of the same info the phone company keeps. Which number called which other number, when, and for how long.

Of all the things to give a damn about, I don't see why this would be especially high on the list of concerns.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 05:32 PM (SY2Kh)

 

I would refer to the same argument we use when people cry about their freedom of speech is being squashed.    The same  speech  we allow private companies to limit  would  be a violation under the constitution for the government to limit.   Phone companies keep our records as a matter of doing business.   To allow the government to gather that individual information without a search warrant is unconstitutional and is a slippery slope, as much as I hate to use that term. 

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 01:41 PM (m2CN7)

83 Flatbush Joe: "Big Data will model every single person and their data will be flagged when they deviate from predicted behavior. If you start buying unusual items or reading unusual websites."

Reminds me of the movie The Island (2005). The clones were measured and corralled at every instant, any deviation detected by the minders.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 16, 2013 01:41 PM (eHIJJ)

84 OT: a poll that needs a Tuffy answer for the rodeo clown who wore the Obama mask...
kxkx.com/vote-for-the-2013-sedalia-person-of-the-year-poll/

Posted by: [/i]andycanuck[/b] at December 16, 2013 01:42 PM (YQUIz)

85 Of all the things to give a damn about, I don't see why this would be especially high on the list of concerns. Oh, I'm sorry. Especially if I inferred that I gave a shit about your rights. Because I really don't. I care about my rights. As should every American.

Posted by: Lace Wigs [/i] at December 16, 2013 01:42 PM (La+CV)

86 Prohibition against "unreasonable" search and seizure necessarily leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 05:39 PM (SY2Kh)


------------


Is it "reasonable" for ordinary citizens who are not suspects in a crime to be spied upon by their government  24/7 ??

All of them?  At any time?  For no discernible cause?

Posted by: grammie winger at December 16, 2013 01:42 PM (P6QsQ)

87 Reminds me of the movie The Island (2005). The clones were measured and corralled at every instant, any deviation detected by the minders.

A good movie that doesn't get enough appreciation.

Posted by: toby928© makes jokes from the Phantom Zone at December 16, 2013 01:42 PM (evdj2)

88 To allow the government to gather that individual information without a search warrant is unconstitutional and is a slippery slope, as much as I hate to use that term.

I have no qualms whatsoever about applying that phrase to an entity that has a monopoly on the use of force, especially one that has shown itself to have no self-imposed limits on the application of that force to help itself by abusing the people it is here to serve.

Posted by: pep at December 16, 2013 01:43 PM (6TB1Z)

89 Except that the Fourth Amendment isn't particularly clear. Prohibition against "unreasonable" search and seizure necessarily leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 05:39 PM (SY2Kh)

 

unreasonable is just as clear to me as infringed. 

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 01:43 PM (m2CN7)

90 Not only silent but with a nod showing tacit approval. Richard Nixon had articles of Impeachment drawn up on him for THINKING of using the IRS to go after political opponents. The difference between the parties is stark.
--

Which is why I've come to the conclusion that, all ideology aside, the country is better off with the GOP in office.  There is NO accountability for the Dems anymore.  There was some as recently as the Clinton era, but no longer.  The accountability argument might work on some indies and LIV especially since there's really not much of a pro-GOP argument to make, and even if the Repubs actually voiced conservative principles the MSM would stifle them.

Posted by: Mayday at December 16, 2013 01:44 PM (eHc+1)

91 So easy to plant evidence on your computer now too.

Posted by: steevy at December 16, 2013 01:44 PM (zqvg6)

92 For no discernible cause?

 No discernible cause?  You might vote Republican.

Posted by: BHO's NSA at December 16, 2013 01:44 PM (6TB1Z)

93 While helping to draft the Constitution, did Ben Franklin also try to invent a spy machine with the intent to gather data on all Americans in every state and territory?  

Posted by: grammie winger at December 16, 2013 01:45 PM (P6QsQ)

94 I read an article somewhere recently that said DNA tests may not be conclusive. Apparently, different areas of our bodies may have different DNA. I'm too lazy to Bing it right now. Posted by: Marmo at December 16, 2013 05:23 PM (QW+AD) Chimeraism. It was considered extremely rare and if we're talking about the same article, now it's estimated that it may affect up to 10% of the population. You want a horror story? Read this. http://abcn.ws/1gCphKT If it turns out that DNA is not conclusive, all hell is going to break out in domestic and criminal cases.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 01:45 PM (VtjlW)

95 Nixon didn't just think about it,he told the IRS to do it,the head of the IRS refused.

Posted by: steevy at December 16, 2013 01:45 PM (zqvg6)

96 So, no flaming skull. What am I missing....?

Posted by: Tip O'Neill at December 16, 2013 01:45 PM (NHO7i)

97 >>Except that the Fourth Amendment isn't particularly clear. Prohibition against "unreasonable" search and seizure necessarily leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation. It seems to me that when you are vacuuming up every citizens conversations and movements for no reason other than to build a database you have gone way past the threshold of reasonable. Particularly when the 4th is balanced by other amendments. I feel pretty confident that the founders never intended this type of government intrusion.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 16, 2013 01:46 PM (g1DWB)

98
The point of the collection for govt is for look back -  so say they wanted to blame a terrorist attack in Libya on a film, why let's see what we got......

Its a way to control....the way black mail and extortion works.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 16, 2013 01:47 PM (MaP11)

99 But you will take wedding photos and make wedding cakes even if it's against your religious convictions because the Constitution was all about fairness to gays and shit.

Posted by: lowandslow at December 16, 2013 01:48 PM (IV4od)

100 One of the things that makes it unreasonable is that you can not refuse it, you cannot 'not comply'. 

Posted by: grammie winger at December 16, 2013 01:48 PM (P6QsQ)

101 3 more years and there will not be any federal judges that are not obama judges. good stuff. SMOD, where for art thou SMOD

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 01:48 PM (t3UFN)

102 Is it "reasonable" for ordinary citizens who are not suspects in a crime to be spied upon by their government 24/7 ??All of them? At any time? For no discernible cause?

Define "spied upon".

Is keeping a record of which phone numbers your phone dialed (without anyone listening in) "spying"?

What about a policeman standing on a corner?  A policeman with a camera?  A video camera on the same corner?  A video camera with microphone?

There's a lot of bad SCOTUS decisions out there motivated by leftist activist judges who ignore the clear text and intent of the Constitution.

With the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure limits are very subjective.  I'm not sure where the line should be drawn and doubt there will ever be any agreement about it.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 01:49 PM (SY2Kh)

103 So what do we have now. Police in TX that feel they have carte blanche in collecting DNA samples anytime and anywhere. Is this in RE the "on arrest" DNA collection?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 16, 2013 01:49 PM (A0glY)

104 Top o' the world, bitches!

Posted by: D.B. Cooper at December 16, 2013 01:50 PM (2oU2+)

105 Is keeping a record of which phone numbers your phone dialed (without anyone listening in) "spying"?

----------



By a political group?  Yes.

Posted by: grammie winger at December 16, 2013 01:50 PM (P6QsQ)

106 Hollowpoint - This is easy. I have a *contract* with the telephone company..., by choice. Get it?

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 01:50 PM (aDwsi)

107 Nixon didn't just think about it,he told the IRS to do it,the head of the IRS refused.

Posted by: steevy at December 16, 2013 05:45 PM (zqvg6)

_________________

I did not know that.  Interesting.  Now all of the alphabet agencies have been inundated with libs who will, I believe, never say no to another liberal.  We are well and truly fucked.

Posted by: Truck Monkey, Gruntled New Business Owner at December 16, 2013 01:50 PM (jucos)

108 But you will take wedding photos and make wedding cakes even if it's against your religious convictions because the Constitution was all about fairness to gays and shit.


"Wedding cakes are a basic human right, bitchez."

Posted by: Stuff Madison Said, Large Print Edition at December 16, 2013 01:50 PM (8ZskC)

109 You cannot just expand the 4th Amendment willy-nilly "because, well, technology."  It makes no sense.

If you want these other areas kept private, there are two solutions:  1) amend the Constitution to include them, which would in fact expand the privacy rights, or 2) have Congress limit what NSA or other agencies can do/collect without a warrant by statute, which is well within their power.

The fact that technology has changed to make it easier to compare fingerprints or trace calling patterns has nothing to do with the 4th Amendment.  You don't have an expectation of privacy for your fingerprints which you leave all over public places every day or for the records of your phone calls which are stored with your phone company. 

Whether the government was looking for a single number called, as in Smith, or just farming metadata looking for patterns, the expectation of privacy is just not there.  This decision will be overturned and the judge knows it.  He's just setting himself up as a hero to the ill-informed.

Not saying the NSA actions are "good" or "necessary," just that they aren't covered by the 4th Amendment as the state of the law exists today and has existed for some time.

Posted by: Adjoran at December 16, 2013 01:52 PM (473jB)

110 Posted by: Stuff Dolly Madison Said, Large Print Edition at December 16, 2013 05:50 PM (8ZskC)

Posted by: garrett at December 16, 2013 01:54 PM (64xVq)

111 If you want these other areas kept private, there are two solutions: 1) amend the Constitution to include them, which would in fact expand the privacy rights, or 2) have Congress limit what NSA or other agencies can do/collect without a warrant by statute, which is well within their power.


I've got lots of room left in my penumbra, fella!

Posted by: The Constitution, America's Favorite Floozy at December 16, 2013 01:54 PM (8ZskC)

112

[Ace:] "We can't just treat precedent from the first half of the previous century as controlling, when obviously the world has changed a great deal since then."

 

I've never liked the idea of 'precedents' though.

Because it has allowed lawyers/judges to create new laws in the courtroom.

 

Our Constitution gives us our governing precedents...and it is supposed to only be changed by congressional action.

Posted by: wheatie at December 16, 2013 01:54 PM (5Nhsl)

113 With the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure limits are very subjective. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn and doubt there will ever be any agreement about it.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 05:49 PM (SY2Kh)

 

Subjective only to you and to people who want more leeway in obtaining your private information which you expect to be private without getting a warrant.   Its the same subjectiveness that  gun control advocates try to place on the 2nd amendment and have succeeded in some fashion. 

 

 

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 01:54 PM (m2CN7)

114 Our Constitution gives us our governing precedents...and it is supposed to only be changed by congressional action.


Say, that sounds kind of French.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at December 16, 2013 01:55 PM (8ZskC)

115 Barack Obama = Nancy Spice

Posted by: Chrissy at December 16, 2013 01:55 PM (b+5vQ)

116 It won't be stopped Electric Eye In the sky Feel my stare Always there I am perpetual I keep the country clean...

Posted by: ginaswo singing Judas Priest at December 16, 2013 01:55 PM (Was8V)

117 Always in focus Can you feel my stare I zoom into you When you don't know I'm there

Posted by: ginaswo thinks the 80s look much better now at December 16, 2013 01:57 PM (Was8V)

118 Hollowpoint - This is easy. I have a *contract* with the telephone company..., by choice. Get it?

No, I don't.

Phones are pretty much considered a necessity- if every phone carrier included in the fine print a clause stating that they reserve the right to share your metadata with the government, what then?

You personally might decide not to use phones anymore, but for most people that's not really an option.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 01:57 PM (SY2Kh)

119

Posted by: Adjoran at December 16, 2013 05:52 PM (473jB)

 

You don't mind that the government has  collected  all those 976 numbers you called?

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 01:58 PM (m2CN7)

120 You personally might decide not to use phones anymore, but for most people that's not really an option.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 05:57 PM (SY2Kh)

 

And when they do that, another phone company will say they don't do that and will get their customers. 

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 02:00 PM (m2CN7)

121 Phones are pretty much considered a necessity- if every phone carrier included in the fine print a clause stating that they reserve the right to share your metadata with the government, what then? --------------- But that isn't the case, is it? You've set up a straw man.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:00 PM (aDwsi)

122 Hollowpoint -  The phone company keeps records because that is its business.

What right does the government have to those records, without a warrant?

Posted by: grammie winger at December 16, 2013 02:00 PM (P6QsQ)

123 117 And there's a more recent one " The Demons Name is Surveillance" by Meshuggah..

Posted by: steevy at December 16, 2013 02:00 PM (zqvg6)

124 There's nothing you can do about it Develop and expose I feed upon your every thought And so my power groooooows

Posted by: ginaswo thinks maybe Lita Ford was right in the 00s to try to wait this out on a beach in Mexico at December 16, 2013 02:00 PM (Was8V)

125 Subjective only to you and to people who want more leeway in obtaining your private information which you expect to be privatewithout getting a warrant. Its the same subjectiveness that gun control advocates try to place on the 2nd amendment and have succeeded in some fashion.

You're seriously trying to argue that "unreasonable" doesn't imply a degree of subjectivity?  The Second Amendment has no such qualifier.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 02:01 PM (SY2Kh)

126 >>You don't have an expectation of privacy for your fingerprints which you leave all over public places every day or for the records of your phone calls which are stored with your phone company. Which are private companies holding private data. Having spent time working for the phone company in the past I can assure you this information used to be considered highly confidential and only a specific subpoena could change that. Who knows, maybe commonsense is coming back in vogue.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 16, 2013 02:01 PM (g1DWB)

127 My one problem is any issue the ACLU likes, I am reflexively against

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 02:02 PM (t3UFN)

128 Is this in RE the "on arrest" DNA collection?

Posted by: bonhomme at December 16, 2013 05:49 PM (A0glY)

 

 

----------------------------------------

 

 

No.  This was a roadblock the police set up  somewhere in the region of north Dallas that compelled people to pull into a parking lot where police and police technicians took every driver's  DNA.

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 02:02 PM (iuBG8)

129 And when they do that, another phone company will say they don't do that and will get their customers.

Only with our permission.

Posted by: The FCC at December 16, 2013 02:02 PM (SY2Kh)

130 oh and now Snowden chimes in, so Snowden and the ACLU likes this decision. Shit I need a drink

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 02:03 PM (t3UFN)

131 You're seriously trying to argue that "unreasonable" doesn't imply a degree of subjectivity? The Second Amendment has no such qualifier.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 06:01 PM (SY2Kh)

 

You're trying to tell me that the Supreme Court has not applied an interpretation to 'infringe'  in the Second amendment? .

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 02:03 PM (m2CN7)

132 No. This was a roadblock the police set up somewhere in the region of north Dallas that compelled people to pull into a parking lot where police and police technicians took every driver's DNA.

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 06:02 PM (iuBG

 

Off duty hired by a private firm. 

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 02:05 PM (m2CN7)

133 No, I don't. Phones are pretty much considered a necessity- if every phone carrier included in the fine print a clause stating that they reserve the right to share your metadata with the government, what then? You personally might decide not to use phones anymore, but for most people that's not really an option. Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 05:57 PM (SY2Kh) You do realize that your argument contains within it the converse of the position which you are advocating, yes? Phones are pretty much considered a necessity. As a result, the definition of person, home, papers and effects should include the phone, including both the data contained on the phone itself and the data that is transmitted from phone as most people consider their phone to be the repository of their papers and effects. That usage of the phone requires the transmittal of some data to a third party does not vitiate the privacy of that data. Adjoran, that is also where your argument and the argument in the prior SCOTUS decision goes awry, imo. That another entity must be involved in the transmittal of the information does not that by necessity void privacy. Now, I think the better way to handle this is through legislation rather than ad hoc judicial rulings but this is by no means as clear cut as some like to think.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 02:05 PM (VtjlW)

134 Off duty hired by a private firm.

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 06:05 PM (m2CN7)

 

but presenting themselves as on duty. 

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 02:05 PM (m2CN7)

135 All your database are belong to us.

Posted by: NSA at December 16, 2013 02:05 PM (zAYq1)

136 But that isn't the case, is it?

You've set up a straw man.

When was the last time you read every word of your phone carrier Terms of Service?

Does this contract prohibit them from sharing such information?

Posted by: The FCC at December 16, 2013 02:05 PM (SY2Kh)

137 So say the government decides that orthodox (little o) churches and associated pro-life movements are the Enemy of the State, and possible hotbeds of anti-government activity.  And say I make a lot of calls between such churches and said organizations.  And say these calls are used as evidence against me in some trumped up case.


No, that could never happen.  Not in America.


snort

Posted by: grammie winger at December 16, 2013 02:06 PM (P6QsQ)

138 So, a mere puny human is trying to deny SkyNet's working towards the Singularity? Buahahahaha.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 02:07 PM (GEICT)

139 But is the different DNA collected from the same individual still unique, in and of itself? Seems to me that the real problem with this new wrinkle in DNA knowledge may be that some criminals have been erroneously found "Not Guilty By Reason of DNA", and released.

Posted by: jwpaine @PirateBallerina at December 16, 2013 02:07 PM (2oU2+)

140 New instructions in all public bathrooms: Flush twice. It's a long way to Langley.

Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn at December 16, 2013 02:07 PM (YDkG9)

141 I remember, after 9/11, modifying the computer code I had written for a library to now store the information on every users name and book taken out -- to conform with the Patriot Act. It left a bad taste in my mouth, but I did it. I thought it was an overreach. But what is going on today is about one hundred times as vile. Give me the candidate that is going to rein in this nonsense, please.

Posted by: Lace Wigs [/i] at December 16, 2013 02:07 PM (La+CV)

142 My one problem is any issue the ACLU likes, I am reflexively against Posted by: Nevergiveup --------------- A healthy instinct, but one that must be tempered by common sense. Even the ACLU gets it right about 1% of the time.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:08 PM (aDwsi)

143 but presenting themselves as on duty.

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 06:05 PM (m2CN7)

 

 

------------------------------------------

 

 

Thank you.  That almost goes without saying.

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 02:10 PM (iuBG8)

144 So, a mere puny human is trying to deny SkyNet's working towards the Singularity?

I've been thinking about the erosion of our personal spheres, and have pretty much concluded that it's an irreversible trend.  We will all be assimilated, sooner or later.

Posted by: pep at December 16, 2013 02:10 PM (6TB1Z)

145 "We can't just treat precedent from the first half of the previous century as controlling, when obviously the world has changed a great deal since then." I know this final line from Ace's post has already been touched on in the comments, but I want to add a little pedantic footnote. I suspect Ace didn't intend his statement to be taken as an argument for a "living and breathing constitution" as was discussed (suggested?) in another comment. It's not even clear to me that earlier SCOTUS precedent was incorrect in that the practical effect of such decisions generally secured the rights intended by the 4th Amendment. But the decisions (reasonably) didn't anticipate the changes in technology that would allow governments (and willingly misled courts) to run roughshod over individual rights. To that end, I would modify Ace's statement as follows: "We can't just treat precedent from the first half of the previous century as controlling, when technological advances allow that precedent to be used in a manner contrary to the principles underlying the rights at issue." Or to formulate a little further: "Precedent must not be used to analogize apparently similar facts where such an analogy, when applied in a (technologically) distinct circumstance undermine the limiting principles inherent in the original decision."

Posted by: Seattle Chris at December 16, 2013 02:11 PM (BCz1s)

146 Guess which judge is getting audited/droned?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at December 16, 2013 02:11 PM (qIeI4)

147 Off duty hired by a private firm. Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 06:05 PM (m2CN7) but presenting themselves as on duty. Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 06:05 PM (m2CN7) Does anyone know whatever happened with that? Also, there was a bit in the sidebar about a kid shooting himself in the head while in the back seat of a police cruiser while his hands were handcuffed behind his back. The cops claim that hey yeah he totally did it, as unbelievable as that sounds. I cannot for the life of me figure out how that is possible. I am not saying the cops are lying, I'm just saying I cannot figure out how the hell someone with his hands cuffed behind his back manages to shoot himself in the head.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 02:11 PM (VtjlW)

148 I've been thinking about the erosion of our personal spheres, and have pretty much concluded that it's an irreversible trend. We will all be assimilated, sooner or later. Posted by: pep at December 16, 2013 06:10 PM (6TB1Z) Resistance may be futile, but it's damn sure human.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 02:11 PM (GEICT)

149

My bottom line is do some freaking real investigations that target real suspects and get your warrants.   All this metadata crap does is result in no one paying attention to the critical factors  because they  somehow  think  a supercomputer will spit out a nice double spaced paper telling them exactly what they need to do.   

 

 

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 02:11 PM (m2CN7)

150 This business will get out of control.

Posted by: Some Actor at December 16, 2013 02:11 PM (YDkG9)

151 Posted by: Seattle Chris at December 16, 2013 06:11 PM (BCz1s) Yeah I agree with this.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at December 16, 2013 02:12 PM (qIeI4)

152

There is a dreadful movie out, called...'Compliance'.

 

Anyone else seen it?

It is about a prank caller to a fast food restaurant, impersonating a police officer.

 

He gets the manager to falsely imprison a young female employee...simply by accusing her of stealing money from a customer.

 

The young female employee is forced to strip, and submit to invasive cavity searches...basically rape...just because this caller insists on it.

 

It's sobering.

And it is based on the fact that this has already happened about 70 times around the country.

Posted by: wheatie at December 16, 2013 02:12 PM (5Nhsl)

153 n his a 68-page, heavily footnoted opinion, Leon concluded that the government didn’t cite a single instance in which the program “actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack.” ---------------------------------------- That is a characteristic of this administration, as in : "We created thousands of Green jobs", or, "We got back every dime spent on saving financial institutions", stuff like that...

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:12 PM (aDwsi)

154 Oh, oh....

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:13 PM (aDwsi)

155 The effect of all this BS  is that Americans now have to watch who they call, what they say on the internet, what groups they donate to, limit how much they speak out on the media, etc etc.

Watch what you say.  Watch what you do.  Watch what you think.  It's all being tabulated by NSA and double checked by the IRS. 

The trend goes downward till you hit Cuba-levels of distrust among even family and friends.

Posted by: grammie winger at December 16, 2013 02:13 PM (P6QsQ)

156 I saw Unreasonable Search open for ACLU Douchebags back in 82.

Posted by: Some Actor at December 16, 2013 02:13 PM (YDkG9)

157 I'm innocent I tell you... Those aren't my italics.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:13 PM (aDwsi)

158 What if we promise to never misuse any data entrusted to us? Why are you laughing?

Posted by: The White House at December 16, 2013 02:14 PM (FcR7P)

159 The effect of all this BS is that Americans now have to watch who they call, what they say on the internet, what groups they donate to, limit how much they speak out on the media, etc etc. ----------------- Do not forget that every envelope you send is also scanned.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:14 PM (aDwsi)

160 The NSA is out of control? Shit I bet the next thing your going to tell me is the NY Jets suck

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 02:15 PM (t3UFN)

161 As I said earlier.  The cat has escaped the bag.  There's really no way of knowing for sure, no matter what law or  judicial decision against this is signed, that  some government agency is going to get a wink and a nod  to do this overtly or covertly. 

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 02:15 PM (iuBG8)

162 You do realize that your argument contains within it the converse of the position which you are advocating, yes?

I'm not sure what position I'm advocating, because I honestly don't know where the "unreasonable" limit should be.

In this example, your phone company collects your "metadata".  You don't have the ability to opt out of it short of refusing to use their service.

I understand that people who accept this practice by a private company might not want the government to also have free access to that information.  However, how personal and private is that information?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 02:16 PM (SY2Kh)

163 I cannot for the life of me figure out how that is possible. I am not saying the cops are lying, I'm just saying I cannot figure out how the hell someone with his hands cuffed behind his back manages to shoot himself in the head. Short people got all kinds of methods. They got little hand, and little eyes. They got baby legs, that stand so low, ya gotta pick 'em up, just to say hello.

Posted by: Randy Newman [/i] at December 16, 2013 02:16 PM (La+CV)

164 Give me the candidate that is going to rein in this nonsense, please. Posted by: Lace Wigs ha..ha... Just like there is little difference between the Institutional Republicans and the Democrats, because they all get seduced by the drama and power of the Capital, there is no hope for candidate that will "rein this in". Once any candidate that campaigns as such gets elected, then the work will begin to seduce and compromise them. Power corrupts and seduces people, and we are all vulnerable to it.

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at December 16, 2013 02:16 PM (RFeQD)

165 They will do as they wish as it is impossible to prove or disprove compliance... "prove it" ... "No, sorry, national security and all that. But take our word, we are totes compliant."

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at December 16, 2013 02:16 PM (vHRtU)

166 FUCK THE GOP AND THEIR NDAA

Posted by: Barky McFucklepants at December 16, 2013 02:16 PM (Cs2tJ)

167 159 The effect of all this BS is that Americans now have to watch who they call, what they say on the internet, what groups they donate to, limit how much they speak out on the media, etc etc. ----------------- Do not forget that every envelope you send is also scanned. Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 06:14 PM (aDwsi) Know what I say? Fuck it. Fuck them. I'm gonna do what I wanna do, say what I wanna say and fuck their noise. If they wanna come after meÂ…*shrug*Â…so be it. I refuse to live in fear.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 02:17 PM (GEICT)

168 However, how personal and private is that information? Posted by: Hollowpoint ------------------- There you go again. I don't care if I am wishing Aunt Millie 'Happy Birthday', it is one else's business. Do you understand 'privacy'?

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:18 PM (aDwsi)

169 I'm not sure what position I'm advocating, because I honestly don't know where the "unreasonable" limit should be. Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 06:16 PM (SY2Kh) Fair enough. I'm not being bitchy by saying that either, that is a fair response.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 02:18 PM (VtjlW)

170 As I said earlier. The cat has escaped the bag. There's really no way of knowing for sure, no matter what law or judicial decision against this is signed, that some government agency is going to get a wink and a nod to do this overtly or covertly. Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 06:15 PM (iuBG Well you see if they could do this with out anyone knowing, without hiring people like snowden, without letting evey ton dick and harry find out about it, without allowing the dick head politician to use it for political purposes then nobody would be complaining because nobody would know.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 02:18 PM (t3UFN)

171 "Does anyone know whatever happened with that?"

The city said, "Oops. Our bad." That's pretty much it. No fines, suspensions, firings, or arrests.

I'm kinda hoping those who were pulled over file suit. I don't think anyone has yet.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 16, 2013 02:19 PM (eHIJJ)

172 Well look at that.  5:15.  Time for Vodka and some pickled herring.

Posted by: grammie winger at December 16, 2013 02:19 PM (P6QsQ)

173 You're trying to tell me thatthe Supreme Court hasnot applied an interpretation to 'infringe' in the Second amendment? .

"Unreasonable" is subjective.  "Shall not be infringed" is not.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 02:19 PM (SY2Kh)

174 ...I'm not being bitchy by saying that eitherÂ… Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 06:18 PM (VtjlW) *raised eyebrow*

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 02:19 PM (GEICT)

175 And by 'privacy' we mean that we know you like it in the ass from a strap-on but we totally won't tell anyone unless you are a terrorist, tax dodge, or fail to donate to the current administration...

Posted by: OG Celtic-American at December 16, 2013 02:20 PM (vHRtU)

176 Short people got all kinds of methods. They got little hand, and little eyes. They got baby legs, that stand so low, ya gotta pick 'em up, just to say hello. Posted by: Randy Newman at December 16, 2013 06:16 PM (La+CV) WILSON, I WILL GO GET A STEPSOOL, CLAMBER TO THE VERY TOP OF IT AND THEN USE A YARD STICK TO BRAIN YOU OVER THE HEAD SO HARD THAT MARY CLOGGSTEIN WILL SOUND LUCID COMPARED TO YOU.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 02:20 PM (VtjlW)

177 I refuse to live in fear. Posted by: BCochran ------------------ It isn't a matter of that. It is a matter of a Servant, who become the Master. It is a question of *what* is and is not a proper role of government.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:20 PM (aDwsi)

178 *raised eyebrow* Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 06:19 PM (GEICT) Don't worry, I was super bitchy earlier today.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 02:21 PM (VtjlW)

179 My one problem is any issue the ACLU likes, I am reflexively against

Posted by: Nevergiveup

Random stops to check for BAC?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 16, 2013 02:21 PM (QFxY5)

180 Fake sign language guy translates Ace's latest post: Tap tap, zig zag, two fingers to the lips, top to bottom squiggle, hook 'em Horns, bunny hopping from right to left, two hands held up to chest in the shape of a heart, repeat ad lib.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 16, 2013 02:22 PM (N/Sup)

181 The trend goes downward till you hit Cuba-levels of distrust among even family and friends.

Posted by: grammie winger at December 16, 2013 06:13 PM (P6QsQ)

 

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

 

It's there now.  I discuss nothing  political  (which is most everything now) with people I don't trust.  Unless it's somehere like AoSHQ.  But we all know Trudy  is  reading intently what we comment here.  Stand up, Trudy.   Take a bow. 

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 02:22 PM (iuBG8)

182 ATC - Are you the one with the awesome step stool of awesomeness? I've been wondering about what manufacturer/model that is.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:22 PM (aDwsi)

183 It's folk like you hollow point that drive me nuts. Oh it's all for our good let them do it. Oh if it only stops 1 terrorist plot. The fucking government has no right to snoop on me period.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 16, 2013 02:22 PM (HVff2)

184 There you go again.
I don't care if I am wishing Aunt Millie 'Happy Birthday', it is one else's business.
Do you understand 'privacy'?

And does that still hold if your Aunt Millie happens to be in Pakistan for 'religious study'?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 02:22 PM (SY2Kh)

185 The "unreasonable limit" was clearer when we were generally governed by reasonable men. We are no longer largely governed by reasonable men. The political class, as a whole, is stupider, more venal, less principled, than ever before. It is an accurate reflection of the electorate, the voters, at large. The answer is not in the stars, but in ourselves. We have become a corrupt people, who eagerly argue ourselves out of any "self limit" to satiate our various needs. A nation of moral voters with a certain amount of self-restraint, would not allow any of this to happen. But a nation of those sorts of people would never have elected Obama.

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at December 16, 2013 02:23 PM (RFeQD)

186 It isn't a matter of that. It is a matter of a Servant, who become the Master. It is a question of *what* is and is not a proper role of government. Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 06:20 PM (aDwsi) Agreed. First part of enforcing proper roles is determining proper roles. I am the master, not them. The master does not, if he's a legitimate master, live in fear of the servant. Respect? Of course. But fear? Fuck that. So, fuck it. I'm not gonna censor myself in any communication. I'm gonna be who I am and say what I think and they can suck my little white irish dick if they don't like it.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 02:23 PM (GEICT)

187 >>I'm not sure what position I'm advocating, because I honestly don't know where the "unreasonable" limit should be. If you build a scale that says no private data can ever be turned over on one and give all data over without a subpoena or any cause whatsoever at the other end what the government is doing is at that far end of the spectrum. There is nothing further. So unless unreasonable has been redefined to mean the government can do whatever it wants and the Constitution means dick this seems to be a pretty easy call.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 16, 2013 02:23 PM (g1DWB)

188 Random stops to check for BAC? Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 16, 2013 06:21 PM (QFxY5) I'm subject to that all the time

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 02:23 PM (t3UFN)

189 I was super bitchy earlier today.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 06:21 PM (VtjlW)

That time of the month?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 16, 2013 02:23 PM (QFxY5)

190 Don't worry, I was super bitchy earlier today. Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 06:21 PM (VtjlW) Sweet. How come?

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 02:24 PM (GEICT)

191 "Unreasonable" is subjective. "Shall not be infringed" is not. Shall not be infringed is completely subjective. Is limiting certain kinds of arms "infringing"? What about limiting the part that goes up? Is that "infringing"?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 16, 2013 02:24 PM (A0glY)

192

My definition of unreasonble is the collection of information  that you have an expectation of privacy.      That expectation is what is subjective and defined based on what a reasonable person and society deem so.   Not the government.  

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 02:24 PM (m2CN7)

193 Random stops to check for BAC? Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo ---------------------- I posted this earlier, and probably will on the ONT: --- With the Holidays upon us I would like to share a personal experience with everyone about drinking and driving. As you may know some of us have been known to have brushes with the authorities from time to time on the way home after a "social session" out with friends. Well two days ago I was out for an evening with friends and had several beers followed by some rather nice whiskys. Feeling jolly I still had the sense to know that I may be slightly over the limit. That's when I did something that I've never done before - I took a taxi home. Sure enough on the way home there was a police road block but since it was a taxi they waved it past. I arrived home safely without incident. This was a real surprise as I had never driven a taxi before, I don't know where I got it and now that it's in my garage I don't know what to do with it.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:25 PM (aDwsi)

194 I'm subject to that all the time

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 06:23 PM (t3UFN)

How about driving to and from duty?

You chose to be constrained by the rules that the Navy has.

I do not choose to be constrained by behavior that violates my constitutional rights. When the cops pull me over without probable cause, my rights are being violated.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 16, 2013 02:25 PM (QFxY5)

195 Oops. I better shut down the computer, an ALL CAPS response. In defense, I luv short women, especially in six inch heels.

Posted by: Randy Newman [/i] at December 16, 2013 02:25 PM (La+CV)

196 ATC - Are you the one with the awesome step stool of awesomeness? I've been wondering about what manufacturer/model that is. Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 06:22 PM (aDwsi) The Awesome Stepstool of Awesomeness is the one that Vendette got for me at the Senate gift shop that has, no lie, a painting of a squirrel in front of the Capital building on it thus allowing me to stompy a squirrel and the Capital at the same time. I think BC has a picture of my standing on it. I'll try to remember to check when I get home what the make and model of the one I got for Christmas is. It's very sturdy and very helpful.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 02:26 PM (VtjlW)

197 So they are collecting all this data? And you are worried that a government that can't run a federal health web site after a Trillion $ is gonna be able to sort thru all that shit? Just saying

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 02:26 PM (t3UFN)

198 And does that still hold if your Aunt Millie happens to be in Pakistan for 'religious study'? What if your will has information about finding Aunt Millie in Pakistan in order to deliver her inheritance? Hey, this worse case scenario stuff is fun. What if you're a sociopathic mass murderer? Is it Ok to enslave you then?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 16, 2013 02:27 PM (A0glY)

199 192 chuckle, snort, chuckle

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 16, 2013 02:27 PM (HVff2)

200 I can't believe there's conservatives out there that actually want this domestic spying bullshit police state.  It's part of the super duper McCain/Graham hawk wing of the party.

Are you really that scared of pipe bomb terrorists that you're willing to shred our civil liberties?

More people have slipped and died in their bathroom than from terrorism Post-9/11.

This is about controlling people, not national security. Just like gun control is not really about preventing crime.

Posted by: McAdams at December 16, 2013 02:27 PM (2TMCu)

201 I do not choose to be constrained by behavior that violates my constitutional rights. When the cops pull me over without probable cause, my rights are being violated. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 16, 2013 06:25 PM (QFxY5) Well then I'd advise you to take the " Fuck the Pigs" bumper sticker off your car!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 02:28 PM (t3UFN)

202 Sweet. How come? Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 06:24 PM (GEICT) Since when do I need a reason? *shinkicks CBD* Does that answer your question?

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 02:28 PM (VtjlW)

203
The point of the information gathering is to control the main populace, not prevent foreign terrorists.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 16, 2013 02:28 PM (MaP11)

204 alexthechick: "I'm just saying I cannot figure out how the hell someone with his hands cuffed behind his back manages to shoot himself in the head."

And then there's the recent case of a drunk man accused of spitting and being belligerent (neither of which happened) having his head bashed into a cinder wall while he was handcuffed and sitting against a detention center wall. Cops said they were being assaulted (via spittle) by drunk man. Video showed it didn't happen.

Or, not too long ago, a disturbed but rather benign man being shot by cops at a distance with cops saying he assaulted them with a knife. Also didn't happen. Video showed man reasonably compliant and well away from officers. They reported that he lunged at them. Never happened.

Exceptions? Possibly. But I'm more and more troubled by our "Protect and Serve" actors. They are committing crimes and covering each others' backs after committing crimes. More than the past? I dunno, but it's being more noticed in the age of video.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 16, 2013 02:28 PM (eHIJJ)

205 The fucking government has no right to snoop on me period.

Is it really 'snooping' if a log of which numbers you dialed sits in an NSA computer, with no human eyes ever seeing the information?

Is it no longer snooping if they get a rubber stamped subpoena to get the info from your phone company without your knowledge?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 02:29 PM (SY2Kh)

206 Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at December 16, 2013 06:28 PM (VtjlW)

I have no idea why this high school humor makes me laugh, but it does.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 16, 2013 02:29 PM (QFxY5)

207 I have no idea why this high school humor makes me laugh, but it does. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 16, 2013 06:29 PM (QFxY5) because high school was a simpler time

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 02:30 PM (t3UFN)

208 Well then I'd advise you to take the " Fuck the Pigs" bumper sticker off your car!

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 06:28 PM (t3UFN)

If they stopped acting like jackbooted thugs, then maybe I would.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 16, 2013 02:30 PM (QFxY5)

209 The Awesome StepStool of Awesomeness. http://tinypic.com/r/2lm3n2q/5

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 02:30 PM (GEICT)

210 because high school was a simpler time

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 16, 2013 06:30 PM (t3UFN)

Or maybe my wife is correct: I'm just simple.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 16, 2013 02:30 PM (QFxY5)

211 The point of the information gathering is to control the main populace, not prevent foreign terrorists.

In what way has your behavior been controlled?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 02:31 PM (SY2Kh)

212 Or maybe my wife is correct: I'm just simple. Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 16, 2013 06:30 PM (QFxY5) Simple has its benefits.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 02:31 PM (GEICT)

213 Is it really 'snooping' if a log of which numbers you dialed sits in an NSA computer, with no human eyes ever seeing the information? Numerous leaks indicate they're storing much more than what numbers you've dialed. Is it snooping if I have the GPS coordinates of the phone in your pocket at all times? If not, what are your exact GPS coordinates right this moment, since you seem to think that's public information.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 16, 2013 02:32 PM (A0glY)

214 Hey, this worse case scenario stuff is fun.

What if you're a sociopathic mass murderer? Is it Ok to enslave you then?

Posted by: bonhomme at December 16, 2013 06:27 PM (A0glY)

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

What about the sociopathic mass murderer who lives in Pakistan who  really really loves Aunt Millie here in the  USA an swears he'll never  set off any terrorist attacks in her city?  What if Aunt Millie sends him a Christmas fruitcake?

Posted by: Soona at December 16, 2013 02:33 PM (iuBG8)

215 AtCÂ…..I have video. And pics. Where's MWR?

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at December 16, 2013 02:33 PM (GEICT)

216 >>And does that still hold if your Aunt Millie happens to be in Pakistan for 'religious study'? This was the way the law was originally written, there had to be at least one party who was overseas. And I don't have a problem with that despite the fact my work takes me to some places that I'm pretty sure are on the target list. But every single call made domestically between two US citizens with no motive other than to build a database? Yea, thats a tad unreasonable.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 16, 2013 02:33 PM (g1DWB)

217 If you build a scale that says no private data can ever be turned over on one and give all data over without a subpoena or any cause whatsoever at the other end what the government is doing is at that far end of the spectrum. There is nothing further. So unless unreasonable has been redefined to mean the government can do whatever it wants and the Constitution means dick this seems to be a pretty easy call.

Oh, they could go further- much further.  Listening in, for instance.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 02:33 PM (SY2Kh)

218 204 The fucking government has no right to snoop on me period. Is it really 'snooping' if a log of which numbers you dialed sits in an NSA computer, with no human eyes ever seeing the information? (YES) Is it no longer snooping if they get a rubber stamped subpoena to get the info from your phone company without your knowledge? (YES, ITS SNOOPING. WTF is the probable cause that I did anything remotely criminal.)

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 16, 2013 02:34 PM (HVff2)

219 And does that still hold if your Aunt Millie happens to be in Pakistan for 'religious study'? Posted by: Hollowpoint ------------------------------- Unless Aunt Millie has been legitimately (via warrant) been identified as posing a security threat, yes it does. The same is true for domestic calls.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:34 PM (aDwsi)

220 Is it snooping if I have the GPS coordinates of the phone in your pocket at all times?

If not, what are your exact GPS coordinates right this moment, since you seem to think that's public information.

I would say that crosses the line.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 02:35 PM (SY2Kh)

221 THE GOP WANTS CAMERAS IN EVERY HOME

Posted by: Barky McFucklepants at December 16, 2013 02:35 PM (Cs2tJ)

222 Ah..., the dinner bell has rung... *Pavlovian response*

Posted by: Mike Hammer at December 16, 2013 02:36 PM (aDwsi)

223 Hammer- 192- I spewed Diet Coke...

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at December 16, 2013 02:36 PM (N/Sup)

224 Unconstutional? Its a tax.

Posted by: Barry at December 16, 2013 02:36 PM (uBVzH)

225 Hey dudes: just in case I ever need to search your wives for contraband, I'm going to need nude pictures of them sent to me, just for database purposes...you know, if I need them.

Posted by: YourPoopyPants at December 16, 2013 02:37 PM (bOKSd)

226 He was nominated to the bench on September 10, 2001 --- how about that

Posted by: ed gibbon at December 16, 2013 02:37 PM (4eNxd)

227 Well when Mr. Hammers aunt returns from Pakistan she can drive the cab?

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at December 16, 2013 02:38 PM (HVff2)

228 The point of the information gathering is to control the main populace, not prevent foreign terrorists.

In what way has your behavior been controlled?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 06:31 PM (SY2Kh)

 

To take from one of your examples.  What if a citizen businessman calls Pakistan quite often for business purposes only.   He buys that cheap crap for Pier One.   If the purpose of the metadata collection is to find patterns and then investigate,  isn't this innocent citizen in danger of becoming a target  and possibly having his life affected if some other flags which also happen to be innocent are raised?   The FBI and other agencies have never made errors like that right?  

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 02:38 PM (m2CN7)

229 n his a 68-page, heavily footnoted opinion, Leon concluded that the government didn’t cite a single instance in which the program “actually stopped an imminent terrorist attack.”
 
 
Interesting but it doesn't matter. The government can't use the "The end justifies the means" defence.

Posted by: Max Entropy at December 16, 2013 02:38 PM (QKYRm)

230 Is it really 'snooping' if a log of which numbers you dialed sits in an NSA computer, with no human eyes ever seeing the information?

Posted by: Hollowpoint

Yes

The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizures.  I think attempting to catalog EVERY single phone call from every single American is "unreasonable" to catch a handful of individuals. 

Especially since it doesn't even work anyway.  What good did it do for say the Boston Bombers?

A terrorist cell is going to be smart enough to use things like disposable cell phones.  If an anonymous person pays cash for a $9 disposable phone, what good does it do to keep all of these records?  It looks like to me it's more about controlling and watching people that follow the rules than stopping terrorists.

Posted by: McAdams at December 16, 2013 02:40 PM (2TMCu)

231 I would say that crosses the line. So you're unaware that MetaData typically includes information that's nearly as accurate at locating you as GPS? Or that if you have GPS turned on the MetaData includes that information? Or that the gov't can remotely turn GPS on? Or are you going to continue to argue that all they're collecting is numbers you're calling, despite numerous leaks that say otherwise?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b] at December 16, 2013 02:41 PM (A0glY)

232

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 06:38 PM (m2CN7)

 

I should clarify that I have no problem monitoring overseas calls from suspected parties but always have a problem when a citizen is involved without a warrant.  

Posted by: polynikes at December 16, 2013 02:45 PM (m2CN7)

233 Or are you going to continue to argue that all they're collecting is numbers you're calling, despite numerous leaks that say otherwise?

The lawsuit we're discussing is about numbers being called, when and for how long.

I'm not sure what exactly they've been collecting.  Some of the leaks haven't been very credible.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 16, 2013 03:15 PM (X9Mnx)

234 Meta-data collection is WORSE than "real" data. Talk to anyone who knows anything about social networking theory.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 56% more DOOM! at December 16, 2013 03:42 PM (qIeI4)

235 No. This was a roadblock the police set up somewhere in the region of north Dallas that compelled people to pull into a parking lot where police and police technicians took every driver's DNA. Posted by: Soona It's worse than you thought, part of a national program by the feds. http://blogs.christianpost.com/friday-tidings/dna-tests-at-government-roadblocks-18965/

Posted by: The Farmer at December 16, 2013 04:30 PM (eBupg)

236 Hollowpoint,
"Just Metadata".
If you're on a cell-phone, it's not only time and number called, it's location.
So, you're in Seattle and make a call on your "Hands-Free" DOT approved cell in your car.
You pull onto I-5 and head south while you talk. As you travel between cells, that data, your LOCATION is recorded, with a time-stamp. As you enter Tacoma, your LOCATION and time-stamp. is recorded.
They know your location, route, speed, and 'who the fuck' you're talking to!

You are being tracked by the Federal(Feral) Government.

But YOU are okay with this?
WTF is wrong with you?

Posted by: ChrisP at December 16, 2013 04:55 PM (BpTC0)

237 "We can't just treat precedent from the first half of the previous century as controlling, when obviously the world has changed a great deal since then."

And the first Leftard (Piers "Musket" Morgan, I'm looking at you) who tries to use that argument to argue that the Second doesn't mean anything because of tech advances, I'd remind them that the Browning 1911 semi auto is over a century old, and fully automatic firearms are reaching the century mark. Information tech has changed FAR more rapidly than firearms tech.

Posted by: SDN at December 16, 2013 07:25 PM (4RsUF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
207kb generated in CPU 0.1566, elapsed 0.4109 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3492 seconds, 365 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 153738
  • Files: 1754
  • Bytes: 4.8G
  • CPU Time: 149:11
  • Queries: 4427424

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5930392

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0