I have to admit, I didn't realize before this how explicitly the Bill of Rights forbids fishing expeditions. If I were working at the NSA I'd be worried about that. It may be inconvenient to be restrained by the constitution, but violating it seems the policy equivalent of selling one's soul to the devil. Once you've started down that road, where do you stop?
I'm slightly less worried that the NSA wants to optimize their interpretation of the constitution to catch bad guys than I am about how little effort it takes to push that interpretation through.
To turn your comment around a little bit in a way that places responsibility on normal citizens or congresspeople instead of the NSA, it's inconvenient to disagree with authority, or deal with a lie, but once you start conceding rights or letting one branch of government lie to another, where do you stop? What's tolerated is encouraged, as most parents would suggest[0].
When this broke, a lot of people said "we already knew!" We did. But when you're explicitly confronted with something, you get to decide whether you're going to tolerate it or not. In fact, you have to - there's no way to not decide whether to tolerate something or not.
0. Incidentally, I wish we would start seeing ourselves as parents of a gov, if for no other reason than to not see ourselves as children.
Although, by virtue of its basis in English common law, laws in the US (including the constitution), are not subject to textual interpretation by laypersons, but instead clarified through judicial precedent. There have been numerous exceptions to search and seizure protections in Supreme Court decisions (drunk driving checkpoints, for instance). This case law holds much more practical weight than the specific text which may be morphed over time by the corpus of precedent.
This goes both ways (we have a Supreme Court endowed "right to privacy" that is nowhere in the constitution specifically, but results from cumulative analysis of several amendments).
The language in the constitution may seem extremely cut and dry, but there are at least ten thousand lines of binding precedent for each word in the bill of rights.
There is a basic impedance mismatch between the 4th and what technologists want the 4th to mean, which is this: even a liberal interpretation of the 4th amendment still characterizes it as a protection of privacy, but what the NSA is doing isn't an invasion of your most intimate private information so much as it's a potentially scary gathering together of information that isn't really all that private but could be harmful by virtue of aggregation. The 4th amendment speaks in terms that are deeply intimate: your "person" and your "house" and your "papers." It's talking about your coat pocket and your desk drawer, places that nobody has access to except for those closest to you. But the row over the NSA's activity is about information that literally hundreds of people (people who you have never even met!) at AT&T, Google, Facebook, etc, have access to. The fear is not people seeing information that was not meant for other eyes to see, because as a matter of fact we voluntarily expose that information to hundreds of other eyes, but rather the government aggregating information that could be abused.
I think the impedance mismatch is most clearly illustrated when you try to apply the text of the 4th amendment to something like the NSA getting call detail records from AT&T, or search histories from Google. The 4th amendment very clearly refers to "their... papers." To this English speaker, it strains the definition of "their" (i.e. "your's") to say that some electronic record that AT&T or Google generated that you never even had access to much less actually possessed is nonetheless "your" private paper or effect. It doesn't make any sense at all.
What's especially frustrating is that there really isn't a penalty for violating these rights. The people have to fight tooth and nail to push the gov't back to the point where they respect privacy rights.
At the end of the struggle, if the people win their rights back, we're just back to where we were supposed to be and there's nothing to stop the gov't from trying again.
It's a battle of bulges. They cross the line in one place, we push them back. They cross again in another place, we push them back again. Without penalties, there's no end to this.
Paul, so happy to see you make a supportive comment on this. I agree with what you've said completely. With all of the awareness and momentum building in the privacy sphere I hope there's room opening up for startups that are explicitly anti-data. I say that with a lot of irony considering I worked as a data scientist at a startup for the past several years.
First, according to Wikipedia, they can't use the PRISM data against you without a warrant; which means that they are operating all this within the 4th Amendment's restrictions (so why do we need to restore the 4th if it isn't broken...?)[1].
Second, Article IV, Section 4, of the US Constitution states that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the states against invasion and domestic violence[2]. Clandestine surveillance programs have long been tools of governments to accomplish such goals; PRISM is just a 21st century version.
Furthermore, the US Government has LOTS of tools at it's disposal that _could_ be used to implement a tyrannical state. But, the beauty of the American system is that we have checks and balances in place to prevent these tools from being abused in a tyrannical manner.
In conclusion, it seems to me that PRISM is a necessary and justified government function. This makes me wonder who exactly is benefiting from the Obama administration receiving so much bad press because it seems that they really are being unjustly crucified (and this is coming from someone who voted against Obama both times).
That's a little scary. I would have figured smart programmers would know these things.
Most of the case law that has shaped this area of jurisprudence involves obvious criminals, mainly those who would be prosecuted for illegal drug possession. One could read all those cases, say, while in law school, and think "Why do we need to be so careful to observe the protections of 4th Amendment? Aren't we just protecting drug dealers and other criminals? Aren't we just making the job of the police more difficult?" But one could also conclude that it is the Constitutional principles we are exercising such caution to protect, not the obvious criminals who sometimes might escape prosecution as a result of forcing police to "follow the rules".
In the context of modern telephone and internet surveillence (which in the coming decade or two will become one in the same, when AT&T is fully transitioned to TCP/IP), one might reason that there's little need to observe the 4th Amendment as it only protects criminals, would-be criminals or citizens with "something to hide". The net is widening.
Instead of the undesirable side effect of having guilty parties (e.g. drug dealers) get away because of the hassle to police of following the rules so as not to collect inadmissible evidence, it seems like we are headed for a different sort of undesired side effect. When all evidence is by default "lawfully" collected (because it's so easy to collect it and people have over time assented to this by failing to object to it): innocent parties are likely to get swept up in what will become a massive dragnet.
> Once you've started down that road, where do you stop?
Well. You don't. And that's the horrifying reality we are waking up to. The data gathering and political targeting by groups such as NSA and IRS are more than likely the tip of a really ugly iceberg.
I think the fundamental lesson here is to remain engaged and, as citizens, make sure that government always sees us as their masters and not their property.
Law enforcement has been conducting fishing expeditions since at least the Clinton years -- going after Swiss and Caribbean banking records to find tax evaders is pretty clearly the definition of a fishing expedition. License plate scanners. Checkpoints. All of these are legal by a narrow reading of the law, but fundamentally against the spirit of the Constitution.
I will be at the Minneapolis Restore the Fourth protest (with my wife, a first-generation immigrant, and our two youngest children). I've put a link to the main Restore the Fourth website on my Facebook wall, and heard that my oldest son, now living in New York City, will be at the New York City protest. We like our freedom in our family. We are not afraid to go out in public and express our opinions on public policy in the view of onlookers, cameras, and the police. (The Minneapolis protest is on the plaza of the Hennepin County Government Center, a familiar first amendment space in our state, which is right across from the City Hall and headquarters of the Minneapolis police.) Petitioning the government peacefully for the redress of grievances is what America is all about. Being out in public to indicate our support of the Bill of Rights and oversight of the government by elected officials is an appropriate way to celebrate Independence Day. See you there if you are in the Twin Cities.
By the way, there are other means we can use to work together to promote freedom. If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the free, downloadable publications of the Albert Einstein Institution,
remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from. You can find publications in Arabic, Azeri, Belarusian, Burmese, Burma (Chin), Burma (Jing-paw), Burma (Karen), Burma (Mon), Chinese (Mandarin), Dutch, English, Estonian, Farsi, French, German, Hebrew, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Kyrgyz, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Thai, Tibetan, and Ukrainian there to share with your friends around the world.
If you can't make it but agree in principle, then discuss it with your friends and family at their BBQ, before fireworks, or whatever you're doing to celebrate today. You don't need heated discussion. Just share what you think and why you think it.
I think you'll be surprised how many minds can change by simply talking. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But eventually.
> Do you want to give the government free reign on all your data?
For some reason, I just don't feel passionately about this issue. I could be in the minority, but to me, our society has become very desensitized by sharing with Facebook leading the charge. This is a new reality and I don't think it's such a bad thing that warrants a protest, though I respect those who feel differently. Our government having the ability to track me has only led to benefits in my life including:
* Being able to retrieve a stolen car
* Not being blown up by terrorists
* Practice any religion I choose
* Fly safely between 5 states and 5 different countries
* Drive hundreds even thousands of miles safely
* Buy and sell what I please, without fear of jail
So yes, if it means I am kept safe and if it means society as a whole can operate more openly, then the government can do what they want with my call data, car location and speed records, buying history, surfing history, etc
I live in th UK so can't physically participate, but you have mine and many other Brit's support on this issue. If nothing's changed by November then I'll be suggesting similar protests over here, all on the 5th.
This was also my first protest. I'm in my late fifties. I joined the Navy in 1975, for six years. In joining, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and I consider my attendance at the Denver protest to be in support of that oath.
I think everyone who participates in this unconstitutional surveillance, and whoever approved it, willfully ignored it or bent the law to support it, should be taken out back and prosecuted.
Total numbers, out of a nation of 320,000,000: Less than 10,000 (and that's being extremely generous).
Since the "national organizers" raised ~$100k, has anyone asked them about being transparent?
Hint: this is not how it gets done (although, that would be repeating myself). Since I was so lambasted in the last thread when I attempted to point out the reality based community P.O.V. I won't repeat it.
Please, you can "down vote" this, however this was an extreme non-event. Hint: if you'd like an example of how a real, multi-week protest with >30k+ protestors each day is being ignored by the media, look to Bulgaria. And their total population is only ~7 million, which places the statistical % at a magnitude far higher than this.
Happy 4th of July, America!
p.s. We have noted the "Reddit Moderators" and their ambitions. Quite the 'motley crew' of under 20 activists! Wise the fuck up.
The SF event was fantastic, and I am proud to have been a part. Even in the face of the BART strike, we had a reasonable turnout.
One thing that was going through my head during the march: much ado has been made about Obama's statement that "you can't have 100% security and also have 100% privacy." I think it deserves rebuttal, but a more careful one than a simple statement that it is false. It is not false; if Obama had stopped before the "and" it would have still been true: you can't have 100% security. What bothers me about it is that it ignores the fact that liberty itself - while valuable in its own right - is also an essential part of security against some threats. It is also unreasonable that "there are tradeoffs" be used as an excuse to avoid discussion of whether the decisions being made are appropriate.
I attended the Chicago event. There were a couple hundred people, short speeches for maybe half an hour in Daley Plaza, then walking a few blocks to Millennium Park (several chants, of which "NSA has TMI" was the most enthusiastic). There was one idiot yelling at the cops and eventually ticketed for writing on the sidewalk. Everyone else was decent, but the rhetoric too frequently strayed from asking for implementable legislation like judicial transparency, actual oversight, and the extent to which terrorism can be used to justify secrecy and the compromise of civil liberties to Snowden (which I consider relevant only insofar as his treatment will affect future whistleblowers and that the human story may cause more people to learn what he leaked) and further to the OWS agenda.
Despite attending an "activist" undergrad school, I've never attended any protests -- since I'm out of the US at the moment I can't attend this one even though I would like to. But here's the question, what can be done to yoke a protest and popular frustration to a particular implementable agenda? It seems that there is a natural tendency in these things to something I can only call "dumb populism" with the loudest people generally making their way most easily to the microphone. I don't know if this is inevitable, but it certainly seems the norm. Any thoughts?
I went to the Restore the Fourth rally in NYC. It was, by a long shot, the most cohesive march I have ever been on.
It helps that the context was threefold: NSA spying, NYPD Stop & Frisk, and NYPD unlawful surveillance of Muslims throughout the tri-state area. All clear 4th Amendment issues. We had a diverse crowd, with a mix of geeks, Occupy-types, Tea Partiers, and members of the Muslim community.
We marched, we chanted, we even took some streets in lower Manhattan. Hard to say how big, but probably about a thousand there. The farthest anyone got off-topic was "Free Bradley Manning." Very rare to see that kind of discipline in a diverse crowd. I was very impressed.
I imagine a few more people would have shown up but on the 4th, plenty of folks already have their day planned out or want to spend the day with family/friends instead.
Forget it, well suppose you win and the legislation you require is accepted, what next? Can you EVER trust the government on anything transferred over internet again?
Solution is the other way around, change communication protocols and practices the way making any wiretapping useless, using open source solutions everyone with enough hacking skills can independently verify. Don't play with the government on their own field, you always lose.
No, we need to push hard on both fronts. A government which does not respect the rule of law is a threat even if our communications are secure in transit.
Agreed. I am surprised there are few comments of this nature on sites like HN. Perhaps spammers could be unlikely allies in a future wave of data obfuscation / poisoning?
I think posting a pictures on instagram/fb/twitter out weighs the risk of the government knowing I was at a protest. I already signed a petition telling them to stop violating the 4th anyway, its got my address and everything. Im not going to let them scare me into being quiet.
I left my cell phone on consciously. I'm not, not going to hide my attendance at a protest from the NSA. It's my right to attend. If you feel you have to hide your attendance, then they've won.
Catchy name but the putative right to privacy is not explicitly enumerated in the 4th Amendment, but is, "to be found in the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of other constitutional protections." (Namely the 4th, 5th and 9th).
That's because the name "Restore the 4th (including the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of other constitutional protections found in the 4th, 5th, and 9th)" was already taken by a pedantic moron, so they had to settle on something that got the point across without taking up pages of text.
How is reading my email without a specific warrant not a violation of the 4th amendment? Seems cut and dry to me.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
This seems to me to be a prime example of HN comment pedantry. The "right to privacy" and "privacy" are not even mentioned on the linked page. They are seeking to restore the fourth amendment against "unreasonable searches and seizures"
Totally. It was a small crowd but very positive, focused, and on message. I'd go again. The saddest thing was how many people we passed at Grand Park that had no fucking clue about the surveillance scandal. At all. The media is the problem.
Edit: And the county sheriffs officers out in full combat gear, with M-4s and body armor, were alarming. But not surprising.
One issue I have with this is that the goals here seem to be "end the unconstitutional spying on Americans".
This isn't necessarily a bad goal, but even if NSA entirely stopped all domestic spying, it would still continue to tap cables headed for foreign lands, and would still be able to compel silent cooperation of any US company to allow them to spy on foreigners.
This is unacceptable if the United States wishes to continue competing on the Internet. If every US-based company can be silently forced to turn over their data to the US government, why use US services? There are a whole lot more customers on the web outside of the US than there are who are US citizens.
Why host on AWS, then, if you know it'll scare your customers away? Why use Google Apps for your email? Why buy Android devices or iPhones for your employees if that data's going straight to NSA via Google?
There are something like 7 billion people on this planet. There are only about 315 million US citizens, or about 4.5%. The vast majority of the profits to be made from the Internet are _not in the USA_.
It's short-sighted. The US military really needs to serve the interests of the country and its businesses, not some stupid fear-based warmongering agenda of its own.
The leaks have been corroborated by the Director of the NSA itself actually, the FAQ could be updated to reflect it:
"To address this shortfall and protect the nation from future terrorist attacks like 9/11, we made several changes to our intelligence efforts and added a number of capabilities. Two of these capabilities are the programs in the news. They were approved by the Administration, Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court"
The Missoula, MT protest was sparsely attended (I think we had sixteen people at the peak, perhaps 20 individuals altogether), but the passersby were all enthusiastic and supportive, honking their horns and shouting their support.
You can influence a corporation's services in a couple ways: 1) don't give them you're money, and 2) don't use their services. Neither of these options are available when the government is engaging in this behaviour.
Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society), however that's a pointless exercise when a change in leaders/political-parties-in-power doesn't result in a change in policy.
Just like how the natural progression beyond free-trade agreements is even tighter economic and social integration between nations (eg: European Union, Trans-Pacific Partnership), the natural progression beyond voting is civil disobedience (ie: protesting). I'm sure you can imagine what lies beyond civil disobedience.
Consider that for every protester there are a handful of people who would never attend a protest of any kind, yet agree or are influenced by the fact of the protest. Those people are talking about this right now at dinner, at work and at the gym.
[+] [-] pg|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinalexbrown|12 years ago|reply
To turn your comment around a little bit in a way that places responsibility on normal citizens or congresspeople instead of the NSA, it's inconvenient to disagree with authority, or deal with a lie, but once you start conceding rights or letting one branch of government lie to another, where do you stop? What's tolerated is encouraged, as most parents would suggest[0].
When this broke, a lot of people said "we already knew!" We did. But when you're explicitly confronted with something, you get to decide whether you're going to tolerate it or not. In fact, you have to - there's no way to not decide whether to tolerate something or not.
0. Incidentally, I wish we would start seeing ourselves as parents of a gov, if for no other reason than to not see ourselves as children.
[+] [-] ewoodrich|12 years ago|reply
This goes both ways (we have a Supreme Court endowed "right to privacy" that is nowhere in the constitution specifically, but results from cumulative analysis of several amendments).
The language in the constitution may seem extremely cut and dry, but there are at least ten thousand lines of binding precedent for each word in the bill of rights.
[+] [-] rayiner|12 years ago|reply
I think the impedance mismatch is most clearly illustrated when you try to apply the text of the 4th amendment to something like the NSA getting call detail records from AT&T, or search histories from Google. The 4th amendment very clearly refers to "their... papers." To this English speaker, it strains the definition of "their" (i.e. "your's") to say that some electronic record that AT&T or Google generated that you never even had access to much less actually possessed is nonetheless "your" private paper or effect. It doesn't make any sense at all.
[+] [-] MichaelApproved|12 years ago|reply
At the end of the struggle, if the people win their rights back, we're just back to where we were supposed to be and there's nothing to stop the gov't from trying again.
It's a battle of bulges. They cross the line in one place, we push them back. They cross again in another place, we push them back again. Without penalties, there's no end to this.
[+] [-] pvnick|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lupatus|12 years ago|reply
Second, Article IV, Section 4, of the US Constitution states that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the states against invasion and domestic violence[2]. Clandestine surveillance programs have long been tools of governments to accomplish such goals; PRISM is just a 21st century version.
Furthermore, the US Government has LOTS of tools at it's disposal that _could_ be used to implement a tyrannical state. But, the beauty of the American system is that we have checks and balances in place to prevent these tools from being abused in a tyrannical manner.
In conclusion, it seems to me that PRISM is a necessary and justified government function. This makes me wonder who exactly is benefiting from the Obama administration receiving so much bad press because it seems that they really are being unjustly crucified (and this is coming from someone who voted against Obama both times).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program), paragraph 4.
[2] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_St...
[+] [-] osth|12 years ago|reply
Most of the case law that has shaped this area of jurisprudence involves obvious criminals, mainly those who would be prosecuted for illegal drug possession. One could read all those cases, say, while in law school, and think "Why do we need to be so careful to observe the protections of 4th Amendment? Aren't we just protecting drug dealers and other criminals? Aren't we just making the job of the police more difficult?" But one could also conclude that it is the Constitutional principles we are exercising such caution to protect, not the obvious criminals who sometimes might escape prosecution as a result of forcing police to "follow the rules".
In the context of modern telephone and internet surveillence (which in the coming decade or two will become one in the same, when AT&T is fully transitioned to TCP/IP), one might reason that there's little need to observe the 4th Amendment as it only protects criminals, would-be criminals or citizens with "something to hide". The net is widening.
Instead of the undesirable side effect of having guilty parties (e.g. drug dealers) get away because of the hassle to police of following the rules so as not to collect inadmissible evidence, it seems like we are headed for a different sort of undesired side effect. When all evidence is by default "lawfully" collected (because it's so easy to collect it and people have over time assented to this by failing to object to it): innocent parties are likely to get swept up in what will become a massive dragnet.
[+] [-] robomartin|12 years ago|reply
Well. You don't. And that's the horrifying reality we are waking up to. The data gathering and political targeting by groups such as NSA and IRS are more than likely the tip of a really ugly iceberg.
I think the fundamental lesson here is to remain engaged and, as citizens, make sure that government always sees us as their masters and not their property.
Restore balance to the force we must.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rdl|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] taproot|12 years ago|reply
On the corner of hitler road and stalin street.
[+] [-] tokenadult|12 years ago|reply
By the way, there are other means we can use to work together to promote freedom. If you really want to be an idealistic but hard-headed freedom-fighter, mobilizing an effective popular movement for more freedom wherever you live, I suggest you read deeply in the free, downloadable publications of the Albert Einstein Institution,
http://www.aeinstein.org/organizationsde07.html
remembering that the transition from dictatorship to democracy described in those publications is an actual historical process with recent examples around the world that we can all learn from. You can find publications in Arabic, Azeri, Belarusian, Burmese, Burma (Chin), Burma (Jing-paw), Burma (Karen), Burma (Mon), Chinese (Mandarin), Dutch, English, Estonian, Farsi, French, German, Hebrew, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Kyrgyz, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Thai, Tibetan, and Ukrainian there to share with your friends around the world.
[+] [-] future_grad|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pyrodogg|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshdotsmith|12 years ago|reply
I really encourage you to go, even for an hour.
If you can't make it but agree in principle, then discuss it with your friends and family at their BBQ, before fireworks, or whatever you're doing to celebrate today. You don't need heated discussion. Just share what you think and why you think it.
I think you'll be surprised how many minds can change by simply talking. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But eventually.
[+] [-] physcab|12 years ago|reply
For some reason, I just don't feel passionately about this issue. I could be in the minority, but to me, our society has become very desensitized by sharing with Facebook leading the charge. This is a new reality and I don't think it's such a bad thing that warrants a protest, though I respect those who feel differently. Our government having the ability to track me has only led to benefits in my life including:
* Being able to retrieve a stolen car
* Not being blown up by terrorists
* Practice any religion I choose
* Fly safely between 5 states and 5 different countries
* Drive hundreds even thousands of miles safely
* Buy and sell what I please, without fear of jail
So yes, if it means I am kept safe and if it means society as a whole can operate more openly, then the government can do what they want with my call data, car location and speed records, buying history, surfing history, etc
[+] [-] MarcScott|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|12 years ago|reply
I think everyone who participates in this unconstitutional surveillance, and whoever approved it, willfully ignored it or bent the law to support it, should be taken out back and prosecuted.
[+] [-] dfc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Helpful_Bunny|12 years ago|reply
Since the "national organizers" raised ~$100k, has anyone asked them about being transparent?
Hint: this is not how it gets done (although, that would be repeating myself). Since I was so lambasted in the last thread when I attempted to point out the reality based community P.O.V. I won't repeat it.
Please, you can "down vote" this, however this was an extreme non-event. Hint: if you'd like an example of how a real, multi-week protest with >30k+ protestors each day is being ignored by the media, look to Bulgaria. And their total population is only ~7 million, which places the statistical % at a magnitude far higher than this.
Happy 4th of July, America!
p.s. We have noted the "Reddit Moderators" and their ambitions. Quite the 'motley crew' of under 20 activists! Wise the fuck up.
[+] [-] dllthomas|12 years ago|reply
One thing that was going through my head during the march: much ado has been made about Obama's statement that "you can't have 100% security and also have 100% privacy." I think it deserves rebuttal, but a more careful one than a simple statement that it is false. It is not false; if Obama had stopped before the "and" it would have still been true: you can't have 100% security. What bothers me about it is that it ignores the fact that liberty itself - while valuable in its own right - is also an essential part of security against some threats. It is also unreasonable that "there are tradeoffs" be used as an excuse to avoid discussion of whether the decisions being made are appropriate.
[+] [-] jedbrown|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jd|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mshron|12 years ago|reply
It helps that the context was threefold: NSA spying, NYPD Stop & Frisk, and NYPD unlawful surveillance of Muslims throughout the tri-state area. All clear 4th Amendment issues. We had a diverse crowd, with a mix of geeks, Occupy-types, Tea Partiers, and members of the Muslim community.
We marched, we chanted, we even took some streets in lower Manhattan. Hard to say how big, but probably about a thousand there. The farthest anyone got off-topic was "Free Bradley Manning." Very rare to see that kind of discipline in a diverse crowd. I was very impressed.
[+] [-] itg|12 years ago|reply
I imagine a few more people would have shown up but on the 4th, plenty of folks already have their day planned out or want to spend the day with family/friends instead.
[+] [-] donohoe|12 years ago|reply
http://donohoe.tumblr.com/post/54550880706/facebook-is-warni...
[+] [-] anovikov|12 years ago|reply
Solution is the other way around, change communication protocols and practices the way making any wiretapping useless, using open source solutions everyone with enough hacking skills can independently verify. Don't play with the government on their own field, you always lose.
[+] [-] dllthomas|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lovemenot|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fragmede|12 years ago|reply
http://www.salon.com/2013/06/06/security_expert_all_occupier...
[+] [-] wavesounds|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lquist|12 years ago|reply
More detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
[+] [-] darkchasma|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wavesounds|12 years ago|reply
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
[+] [-] jkldotio|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rmc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshuaellinger|12 years ago|reply
And if we can't get our own government to obey the basic founding rules of the country, we're got going to get any real protections for non citizens.
[+] [-] wavesounds|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jurassic|12 years ago|reply
Edit: And the county sheriffs officers out in full combat gear, with M-4s and body armor, were alarming. But not surprising.
[+] [-] sneak|12 years ago|reply
This isn't necessarily a bad goal, but even if NSA entirely stopped all domestic spying, it would still continue to tap cables headed for foreign lands, and would still be able to compel silent cooperation of any US company to allow them to spy on foreigners.
This is unacceptable if the United States wishes to continue competing on the Internet. If every US-based company can be silently forced to turn over their data to the US government, why use US services? There are a whole lot more customers on the web outside of the US than there are who are US citizens.
Why host on AWS, then, if you know it'll scare your customers away? Why use Google Apps for your email? Why buy Android devices or iPhones for your employees if that data's going straight to NSA via Google?
There are something like 7 billion people on this planet. There are only about 315 million US citizens, or about 4.5%. The vast majority of the profits to be made from the Internet are _not in the USA_.
It's short-sighted. The US military really needs to serve the interests of the country and its businesses, not some stupid fear-based warmongering agenda of its own.
[+] [-] mikemoka|12 years ago|reply
"To address this shortfall and protect the nation from future terrorist attacks like 9/11, we made several changes to our intelligence efforts and added a number of capabilities. Two of these capabilities are the programs in the news. They were approved by the Administration, Congress, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court"
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/speeches_testimonies/25jun13_...
[+] [-] jonmrodriguez|12 years ago|reply
https://yougen.tv/video/78dd523f-1db2-4a20-833f-b07d0749b6fb...
[+] [-] kevinbluer|12 years ago|reply
https://www.adoberevel.com/shares/d8403bbd4b374bd18fdb475aa6...
[+] [-] presidentender|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pekk|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ihsw|12 years ago|reply
Your only recourse is voting (as it should be in a democratic society), however that's a pointless exercise when a change in leaders/political-parties-in-power doesn't result in a change in policy.
Just like how the natural progression beyond free-trade agreements is even tighter economic and social integration between nations (eg: European Union, Trans-Pacific Partnership), the natural progression beyond voting is civil disobedience (ie: protesting). I'm sure you can imagine what lies beyond civil disobedience.
[+] [-] kimlelly|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|12 years ago|reply