Rand Paul Lawsuit

[Menelik]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...action-lawsuit-against-surveillance-programs/

 

[davidholly]

Am I the only person who sees the legality in what the NSA is doing? They aren't forcing any company to open up their servers to them, the companies have voluntarily opened up their private servers. Last time I checked you didn't own the server your Gmail was hosted on. When the authorities want to look inside a Gmail account they don't present the warrant to the person who registered the account, they present it directly to Google. There's nothing unconstitutional with a company not asking for such a warrant though.

This is the price you pay for hosting your info with third parties, don't like it? Host your own email.

 

[Menelik]

Am I the only person who sees the legality in what the NSA is doing? They aren't forcing any company to open up their servers to them, the companies have voluntarily opened up their private servers. Last time I checked you didn't own the server your Gmail was hosted on. When the authorities want to look inside a Gmail account they don't present the warrant to the person who registered the account, they present it directly to Google. There's nothing unconstitutional with a company not asking for such a warrant though.

This is the price you pay for hosting your info with third parties, don't like it? Host your own email.

No you're not the only one BUT a lot also see this as an unreasonable search and seizure.

 

[davidholly]

No you're not the only one BUT a lot also see this as an unreasonable search and seizure.

The property owner is the company who owns the servers, not the person who registered the account. If they consent to a search there's nothing unreasonable about it.

 

[Menelik]

The property owner is the company who owns the servers, not the person who registered the account. If they consent to a search there's nothing unreasonable about it.

Some of the companies, I think, are saying that they aren't consenting. Also what right to privacy do WE have for transmitting data? None?

 

[davidholly]

Some of the companies, I think, are saying that they aren't consenting. Also what right to privacy do WE have for transmitting data? None?

Don't use servers belonging to companies you don't trust.

 

[jaxvid]

Don't use servers belonging to companies you don't trust.

And how do you know that if the govt conducts secret operations that are only rarely exposed?

Besides the idea is that it is not legal for the govt to conduct ANY of these search operations as it is a violation of the privacy clause of the constitution and thus constitutes an illegal search.

But anyway in obamas amerika your strict libertarian attitude is not only hopelessly archaic and laughably naive. Why argue the arcane issues of what the govt can and cannot do in an era where the govt no longer follows the rule of law?

You would have had a better response to the thread by simply shrugging and admitting that there is no private property anyway so why expect it to be protected, instead of claiming that old dead White male concept of the private ownership of something?

 

[davidholly]

It's not a violation of the privacy clause because the property owner has allowed it. Everything hosted by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. is owned by them, your user accounts belong to them aswell. I may not agree with them letting the government have access to the info but the fact remains that the servers and by extension all the files on them belong to them.

 

[jaxvid]

It's not a violation of the privacy clause because the property owner has allowed it. Everything hosted by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc. is owned by them, your user accounts belong to them aswell. I may not agree with them letting the government have access to the info but the fact remains that the servers and by extension all the files on them belong to them.

As I remember it the constitution goes something like "safe from unreasonable searches and seizures of your papers and property". I don't know about you but I consider my private correspondence MY property and the govt sweeping every phone call and email in the country seems "unreasonable".

But keep up the faith, if there ever is a "reset' in this country I sure want guys like you around that try to follow the rule of law as it is supposed to be interpreted.

 

[davidholly]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/t...t-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html

So Yahoo! was forced by a secret court ruling to participate in PRISM, so much for consent.

 

[jaxvid]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/t...t-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html

So Yahoo! was forced by a secret court ruling to participate in PRISM, so much for consent.

I'm not trying to pick on you but why would a court ruling be necessary to force a company to have to do what the govt tells them? With the tremendous overreach of govt at all levels they only had to hint at repurcussions and what could Yahoo do. Think about it. You're a yahoo executive and the NSA stops by and says they want something, and they make it clear you can assent or face certain er repurcussions. What should a good exec do? Risk his company being ruined or just go along as whoever would be next would have to do anyway?

That's what I mean by constitutional protections. You think the founding fathers didn't know about govt overreach? You think they didn't know how one word from a royal family member could chill free expression? To assume that the written words of the Constitution or even law should be the basis of our freedoms is to make the mistake of defending on them to protect us. Which they clearly have not.

Paul is doing the right thing. With massive support the courts might be swayed into passing decisions that support freedom, as they have on other issues of public popularity that don't support freedom.

 

[Old Scratch]

I'm not trying to pick on you but why would a court ruling be necessary to force a company to have to do what the govt tells them? With the tremendous overreach of govt at all levels they only had to hint at repurcussions and what could Yahoo do. Think about it. You're a yahoo executive and the NSA stops by and says they want something, and they make it clear you can assent or face certain er repurcussions. What should a good exec do? Risk his company being ruined or just go along as whoever would be next would have to do anyway?

That's what I mean by constitutional protections. You think the founding fathers didn't know about govt overreach? You think they didn't know how one word from a royal family member could chill free expression? To assume that the written words of the Constitution or even law should be the basis of our freedoms is to make the mistake of defending on them to protect us. Which they clearly have not.

Paul is doing the right thing. With massive support the courts might be swayed into passing decisions that support freedom, as they have on other issues of public popularity that don't support freedom.

If Yahoo was indeed forced and came out to the public about it and launched a lawsuit against the NSA they would have gained a lot of public favor and attention.

As it stands I am personally boycotting every company associated with PRISM and if I use their service have sought out alternatives.