The Crew Forum Politics Thread (Read Before You Post)

Packages convey real goods. Communications convey speech.

Another major difference.

What if instead of getting 330 million people to agree to it, what if a majority agreed to it? Or even 75% of the population?

You'd be forcing your views on the remaining individuals that do not agree. That may be how a direct democracy works, but it's not how a constitutional republic works.

You don't understand yet that the Constitution (and the Declaration before it) were meant to PROTECT minority opinions? Like explicitly so? And that abuse of said principles have led, in this country, to things like Jim Crow and the internment of Japanese and Germans? Abuse of said principles in other countries have led to things like the ********ing Holocaust.

i understand that everyones view of common sense is different, i was not saying it was right or wrong, merely pointing out that in this instance my idea of common sense is completely counter to your ideas.

i just made an assumption based on the gulf state analogy. I assumed that we were bringing most everything into the discussion at that point....

I was joking about the meany insulty post btw, and the cross thing.

and the removal and resettling of native americans in this country...etc.

Then why bring it up? And really you don't know that "my idea" of "common sense" is completely counter to your ideas, except sort of in this one area.

Shouldn't assume.

Fair enough, I suppose, but why is your pattern to argue rather earnestly and intelligently, then suddenly and without warning make a joke without so much as a minor hint? I mean, if I were less charitable, I'd say you were providing yourself cover like comedian-commentators such as Bill Maher, John Stewart and Dennis Miller often do.

True enough.

I just never know if a smiley is appropriate. I suppose depending on placement and context. That is a problem with virtual debating.

Seconded.

Liberal meccas have the highest murder rates.

as a percentage of population or just total numbers?

For purposes of the law, not different at all. Governments have had the right to open and inspect mail for a couple hundred years. Doesn't matter if the mail is delivered by the government itself or a private party. When you send an email to someone abroad, you are sending it to a carrier first who is free to share it with the government. That's what the liability shield for telcos is about. Generally there's no expectation of privacy for unencrypted communications even within the US, and there's no legal protection for messages and files sent or received from abroad.

Governments have asserted such a right (mostly secretly) for hundreds of years, maybe.

How, again, does warrantless wiretapping and turning e-mails over to the NSA (or the direct warrantless snooping by the NSA on third-party equipment) square with the 4th Amendment?

I hope that's an unintentional bit of newspeak. What about when the carrier doesn't want to? And above all of that, what about the requirement of providers to adhere to their OWN DAMN PRIVACY POLICIES and terms of service when entering a contract with a customer?

Within the US, there absolutely is a 4th Amendment expectation. And since when did US citizens abroad surrender THEIR 4th Amendment protections (except, of course, in Obama's Administration).

The 4th amendment protects persons and their possessions from unreasonable searches. IMO NYC's stop and frisk policy violates the 4th amendment. It protects your computer from searches without a warrant but when you hit "send" on an email it leaves your possession. It enters the possession of whatever telco's infrastructure you use. They will normally forward it to the intended destination but if they make a copy for the government to peruse, your rights haven't been violated. I hope people are aware that if they send personal emails from work, their employer has every right to read them. Why? Because the employer is the owner of the network being used.

The telcos usually have long, non-negotiable customer agreements that limit remedies. Notably the remedies follow contract law rather than tort law. So if you find out the telco violated their stated policy your remedy is to go to arbitration with them for a refund of your bill, not sue them for invasion of privacy.

The telcos can be cooperative or resistant to government requests but that's up to them. If you want privacy, encrypt. The government needs a warrant to physically enter your premises to place a wiretap but if you use a cell phone, they are free to listen in if they can. Typically they will ask for a "roving wiretap" warrant to avoid arguments over admissability but that's mainly law enforcement rather than intel agencies.

They have violated their contract with you if their policies and TOS say otherwise.

Also, the text of the ********ing amendment says:

If you don't think communications are analogous to "papers, and effects", I don't know what to tell you.

No shit, but that's completely different when we're talking about the government siezing communications from providers.

Law enforcement must meet probable cause standards. Intel agencies...can do whatever they want?

This is not a settled issue given all the discussion and Congressional wrangling about it. FISA of 1978 and 2008 were created to try to rein in abuse of this sort of thing specifically, and 2008's law was in response to the NYT finding out about the NSA tapping without a warrant. Of course the law barely did anything to curtail it.

It's a stretch

Yes, and violating TOS doesn't mean much. The agreements contain arbitration clauses and limit remedies. Again, they apply contract law rather than tort law.

The government isn't seizing anything, they're asking nicely and the telcos hand it over without objection. That's because the telcos are heavily regulated and have other business before government agencies. Thus you shouldn't rely on the phone company to protect your privacy.

Communications are analogous to papers and effects when in your possession. The government would need a warrant to take them from you. When in the possession of somebody else, you generally don't have much standing to assert a privacy right, unless there is another right involved like attorney/client, medical privacy, etc. If the government wants to know who you've made and received phone calls from, they ask the phone company and get the info without a warrant. If they want to listen to your actual conversations, they get a warrant to physically place a wiretap in your house or they use scanners without a warrant if you use wireless phones (which are really a specialized type of radio). Criminals use anonymous, disposable phones ("burners") on a short term basis because there isn't much privacy with phones.

Law enforcement agencies care about admissability, intel agencies don't. The exclusionary rule only protects guilty defendants not 3rd parties.

To tie together 2 topics discussed earlier in the thread:

https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/284701229001605120

The average Briton is 5 times more likely to die from negligent government health care than the average American is from a gunshot. Not terribly surprising since almost everyone in Britain uses the NHS.

We need government control!!! Wait, we have them....guns!

Yup. A one-time use military-grade weapon. Use it once and then dispose of it. I was chatting about this with someone else and it was suggested by him that this AT-4 was either spent or a trainer. If a civilian obtained a live one, then it's time to start asking questions.

Apparently, there's people that take older weapons in just to make an easy $150 on something that hasn't been usable in several decades.

Bravo. I don't think a few semiautomatic handguns are going to take down planes capable of going on bombing runs. It would be like putting a two pair up against a royal flush.

What's a "bombing run"?

I'm more referring to the fact that that tactic is a bit out of date. Never mind.

But more seriously, the Air Force consists of a bunch of guys (mostly fighter jocks) who tend to skew anti-authority, so the assumption that all (or even many of) the F-16 and F-15 and F-22 and F-35 drivers are going to go around bombing domestic targets is not a good one. I'd say the same for the Naval aviators.