Discussing American politics as civil human beings

Which is a totally fair concern. But I figure, however many steps you take towards some end, you still cross that bridge when you get there; judge each step on its own merit. If, say, a law makes the USA look more like a terrifying Orwellian world in some respects, that isn't reason enough to discount it unless it by itself poses a problem. I think legislation is about something other than running from the worst poles. Legislation is a practical process of shifts and changes, of piecemeal laws and ideas, rather than a huge war between theoretical end-states.

In this respect, I'm talking specifically about my own incomplete ideas. Large institutions have the capacity to spread misinformation, no matter how much actual information they have. Whether big corporations, centralized government, business coalitions, or even powerful individuals, those can all attempt to produce any sort of public narrative they wish and, with the current speed and volume involved in mass communications, it's incredibly difficult -- essentially impossible -- for any public or private group to curate it all.

As applying this to other people, rather than just myself -- yeah, I get that. It doesn't mean I would vote for something just because other people want it (that's a whole huge political and philosophical ball of wax, but check out Gatchaman S2 for the basics). The reason I don't push for it more is because I think it's only marginally effective, especially as a preventative measure. Gathering, storing, and sorting that much data takes a lot of work, and a lot of resources. Those resources could be better spent on more constructive projects. As a reactive measure, that is, shifting through large quantities of data if someone may have committed a crime, I think people currently have too high an expectation of privacy, and I'd vote to increase that police power.

No politician will curry favor with me by advocating technological privacy, but this particular form of privacy runs tertiary to a lot of other personal voting interests, so it usually doesn't come up that much. Environmental, financial, and foreign concerns -- all of those take massive precedence. As a result, you needn't worry about my particular views on this showing up fierce and strong in the electorate, because I certainly care about information privacy, I care about other things a lot more.

 

Sounds awfully much like ends justifying means

 

Could you elaborate on what part makes you think that? Because it's not surprising at all, it absolutely should sound like that, but what sections in particular made that apparent?

 

I mostly responded to the first one and didn't even read the second paragraph through, for two reasons; first, I'm lazy, second, something is really wrong with my eyes. Maybe I rubbed lye in or some crap.

 

Alright, thanks. Hope your eye gets better, that stinks.

 

Certainly the last two sentences are true. But the law itself DOES pose a problem. A pretty big problem, imo. I'm no fan of the "slippery slope" argument, so I want to clarify that that isn't what I'm saying in regards to the NSA. I think the level of power they have to enter the private communications of individuals is a big deal right now.

This is the judgement that I think I take issue with in particular: the idea that if the government uses the information to punish crime, disregarding privacy is fine. This is one of the basic beliefs behind many justifications of the NSA and increased surveillance legislation, and I disagree with it on a fundamental level. Part of this traces back to the myriad problems in the law enforcement sector of this society, part of it stems from dissatisfaction with the extent to which we rely upon punishment as an instrument of order, part of it is an ideological aversion to granting the state the power to violate the terms of the Bill of Rights (Amendment 4, for example) and part of it is just personal perspective.

There exists, at a non-negligible level, a point at which the law fundamentally cannot make sense of the merit of private actions, and the safeguard of privacy is fundamental in this way to protecting the individual. I don't believe that once you break the law you forfeit your rights--on the contrary, I think the rights of a criminal are THE essential component that grants the permission of highest say on disputes to the government. They are one of the most important distinctions that separate our system of justice from vigilantism or personal feuds.

 

Could you elaborate on this? Why?

This is part of what I disagree with though -- the idea of a right to privacy, at least in the sense other people have been describing it here. I don't see it as violating privacy to some end; in my mind, there's no violation in the first place. Different basic assumptions about the values at play here.

Policing and punishment are two different things. I certainly believe in having a robust police force, but don't agree with a lot of punitive measures currently in place. It certainly would seem punitive, though, if you innately value privacy.

If you would rephrase this as "legal systems are an improper way to weight the value of some private actions" then yes, I would agree with that -- but I'm not completely sure about what you're saying, just guessing. I don't think you're actually saying what I just phrased, but something slightly different.

I think criminals and potential criminals should keep some legal rights, but at the same time they already do forfeit others. People can be put in lock up for a period of time without a conviction; that's part of the legal process, and it clearly deprives them of some physical freedoms. People currently have a legal right to privacy. I think that, similar to some other rights, they would concede part of that once they become involved a potentially criminal case.

Here's a way to look at in more practical, material terms: I would be comfortable with a less-strict process for the acquisition of search warrants when it comes to information; officers of the law can already acquire this information with a warrant, but it takes some time. That's one of the policy end-points of my beliefs and preferences.

 

Very, very, very well stated. You should win the internet. But that is reserved for Kardashians and Biebers and such these days.

 

For @BurnPyro as architect of this thread:

"A Morning Consult poll, released Friday, surveyed 504 registered voters who watched Wednesday’s Republican primary debate and has only good news for Republican frontrunner Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina. While the poll’s sample size is small (with a 4.4% margin of error), the poll’s trend is worth noting.
In this same poll, prior to Wednesday night’s debate, Trump sat at 33% support. Dr. Ben Carson sat in second place with 17% support. Today Trump enjoys 36% support. Carson is still in second place but with just 12% support.

With their shared status as outsiders, it appears as though Carson’s support went to Fiorina. Prior to the debate the former-Hewlett Packard CEO had just 3% support. She now sits in third place with 10%, only -2 points behind second place Carson.
Overall, the Republican Establishment is the Big Loser here. Non-politicians Trump, Carson and Fiorina command 58% of the vote, and that piece of the pie is only growing larger."

(Highlighting my addition).

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...mp-increases-lead-fiorina-leaps-carson-drops/

 

2nd A FTW!

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights

 

that's one of the things i was sort of intrigued by- it does seem that most of the major contenders for the nominations are very much different from what we've had before.

my theoretical top 4 (2 of each) at the moment is trump and carson for the right, sanders and clinton for the left. trump and carson are both without official political or military experience, so far as i know; this being relevant because to the best of my knowledge we've never had a president that wasn't in politics, the military, or both.

for the left, clinton is the more mainstream candidate, but also a woman. sanders, on the other hand, is a socialist jew who seems intent on if not reform then rehabilitation (couldn't think of a word, w/e)


looking like we're gonna have more firsts this election.

 

This is the John Oliver "Last Week Tonight" segment I was thinking of earlier. It does a pretty good job of making the topic accessible and is also pretty funny.

Okay. We have different values on this matter, which is okay, but I do still wonder if it isn't a bit myopic to judge policy based entirely off of personal values. In this case, you may not care about privacy, but the ramifications to those who do may still be alarming enough that the money, resources and standards of precedence that come as a cost might deter you from accepting the NSA's existence. Maybe not, I can't speak for anyone other than myself here. But I do wonder what positive there is to the NSA that outweighs what amounts to a major violation of the Fourth Amendment. To try to make myself as clear as possible here, I recognize and accept that you don't particularly care about a right to privacy but want to ask if you see any grounds to opposing a government action based on its adherence to its own explicitly stated principles.

In theory they are, but the major institutions of law enforcement in this country are centered on punitive measures. In practice, the expansion of policing IS an expansion of punishment in the current US, until further changes are made to the way our systems operate.

That's about right. Specifically because our legal systems are too large, they cannot always account for individual circumstances.

Yes, criminals forfeit some legal rights, and in my mind that is not a good thing. It is a necessary thing based on the system we have in place, but it isn't ideal in any way. The multiple abuses of incarceration without conviction in the past couple decades have made this pretty clear. Sure they can concede part of their rights, but I think they should concede as few rights as possible. I don't see why this override of the right to privacy is necessary, is basically what I'm getting at.

 

What, if any, right to privacy do you believe exists, and when/where does it apply?

 

Top 4 as in top 4 you want to win the presidency or top 4 you think realistically will win the presidency?

 

I don't think being a woman impacts how mainstream she is or isn't. Certainly, a female President would be a novel thing, but it's not going to be particularly impactful of her policies.

I dunno, I guess I just don't feel much like there's much significant difference other than the wrapping (well, Carson maybe).

 

the perceived top 2 for each side at or around this moment. obviously the significance of support at this point in the race isn't quite as much as later on, but it's what we've got.

the woman part was really more along the lines of "if one of these 4 gets the job, it'll be a first for the presidency no matter what"

woman, socialist/jew, two non political/military figures (though again, i haven't checked that one)

 

Fun note to preface this next part: I'm am totally on any lists the NSA has. I did a research project on Abu Sayyaf, an Islamic terrorist group in the Philippines; that's a month or two of dedicated internet searches and library checkouts.

I don't believe in natural rights. Rights don't exist in that sense. Any rights are purely legal -- permissions granted to members of a community by the other members of that community. There's no higher power or innate truth to any action. It all comes down to how people treat each other, and what people expect from one another. That does put me somewhat at odds with the US Constitution. Consider it a more extreme out-growth of legal realism.

I think there should be a legal right to privacy in the sense that a person should have expectation of privacy from the general populace, the people at large, and have some legal defense against targeted breaks in that sense. Additionally, I'd expect there to be systems in place to prevent the dissemination of information beyond predetermined groups. When it comes to a more physical expectation of privacy, things which can be materially intrusive, I think the current system of required warrants is good.

How else would you judge it?

That isn't quite what I was talking about. Will re-divert the attention elsewhere, though.

In a legal sense, it bothers me -- I'd support someone who objects to the NSA on the grounds that they feel their actions are in clear contradiction to present law. For example, I respect Snowden's decision, but can't fully support it because of its illegal nature. I have no personal quibbles over present surveillance right now, leaving the legal concerns aside.

Which, getting onto it, is surprisingly nebulous, owing to two incredibly loose words in the fourth amendment: "secure" and "unreasonable." There's a legitimate interpretation of "secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" to mean in a physical sense. If "secure" is interpreted as the person still maintaining the use and function of those items -- "persons, houses, papers, and effects" -- then only a small number of technological maneuvers could be considered unconstitutional. That interpretation, however, does go against decades of jurisprudence to the contrary, and is ultimately weak.

The second key word, "unreasonable," has made wonderful appearances in plenty of SC decisions over the years. That word is obviously and consistently open for reinterpretation and reevaluation. In the same vein as the prior, much weaker defense on the grounds of "secure," a court could key off of "unreasonable" to say that, because these searches have no effect on the person's involved -- they in no way alter their physical, financial, or social well-being, or the person's access to the items involved -- then the search is not unreasonable. If the Supreme Court made that decision today, vast swathes of NSA actions could be patently constitutional.

As for the foreign surveillance -- I think a few instances should have been stopped by the FISA Court. That, however, is more the failure of an already-present internal system than a larger categorical problem.

 

Lol. Most likely you are on an FBI watchlist. One of my professors was just talking about this earlier today. Plan to add at least an hour to your plans whenever you fly.

Any of a number of ways: by the values of a group, by the values of the whole (in theory), by the values of an ideal, by the projected ramifications, by the actuarial/empirical ramifications (if the law is already in effect), by assessing risks/benefits, by considering alternatives, by examining precedent, by comparing adherence to pre-existing doctrine or law, etc.

I generally judge laws based on the amount of suffering they stand to alleviate in the world--secondarily by their necessity in upholding order. But I do also "[object] to the NSA on the grounds that I feel their actions are in clear contradiction to present law."

I am a bit confused as to why the stipulation of "physical sense" would be added to the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. As it stands, this is not how the Amendment has been interpreted nor how law functions in practice. Neither is the key component of unlawfulness in a search or seizure the denial of physical, financial or social access. If the police enter your house uninvited without a warrant and search but do not take anything, the information they gather is still inadmissible in court, as it should be. They would also be liable for disciplinary action (depending on circumstances). It doesn't require them to take something physical.

Another example is something like correspondence or postage. Opening another person's mail without their knowledge is a crime, even if you leave the mail accessible to them and it is still physically indistinguishable. Information gained in this way would still be considered unlawful.

I would also highly contest the idea that gaining access to information without consent has "no effect" on the persons involved. In many legal cases, information is the basis of the decision. Industries, artists, companies, NGO's, writers, scientists, developers, and many others rely for their livelihood on having protections of their information, so much so that multi-billion dollar suits over the ownership of information are heard on a day-to-day basis and those sums of money legally change hands over the resulting decisions.

 

I was actually short-listed last time I flew, so maybe they know what they're doing.

Those are all personal judgments passed through a variety of color-changing tunnels.

I was actually thinking about the postage example when writing up a response; any search of postage delays its delivery. That's a physical imposition. Likewise with the police coming into your house, that too is a physical imposition. Both of those acts require, at minimum, a minor disruption of the nature of the property or material involved. The observation process is, to some small extent, disruptive to the function of the person's affairs. Trawling meta-data, duplicating phone calls, browsing emails -- a large waste of the observing institutions time, that's for sure, but in no way disruptive to the actual affairs of the observed. That's what I meant by a "physical sense" in interpretation, that people need to be "secure" in that respect. Again, those interpretations don't -- let me pull a couple quotes --

they don't cover current actions taken with respect to the law. But, they are theoretically viable options for a Supreme Court ruling, and in that sense, I can respect someone who opts to agree with the NSA's choices even on legal rather than moral grounds.

It absolutely can have an influence on people, like you say, information is a huge deal and getting constantly more important. That can be a problem -- if there's a breach. In that respect, I actually feel surprisingly safe, and not this time out of any innate respect or belief in people, but out of experience. Consider how much information the NSA has collected so far: probably a hell of a lot, even on incredibly important people. So far, there hasn't been a single incident in which the people who now have that information have abused it. That comes with the "to our knowledge" caveat, but in the case of potential intellectual property, patents, or technology, you can bet a stink would start and fast. For market information, maybe it's happening? But that's also traceable -- the IRS is bound to notice.

Consider how ridiculous that is though. In the Snowden interview in the John Oliver bit you linked, he talks about NSA members passing around nude photos and stuff like that, which is juvenile and crude, but that's honestly the extent of it. Something is working. I think it's not gaining the information that has an effect, it's using it, and in that respect at least, things look like they're going even better than I would expect. Seriously, you would think at least one NSA member would have used this information to some petty end, but nope. It would have been an enormous riot of a story if they had.

(Usually I try to stay optimistic about large institutions, but even this one confounds me. It's been more than 10 years under the Patriot Act, right? You'd think there would be one scumbag somewhere who would really abuse that power.)