View Full Version : Supreme Court bans warrantless cell phone searches
A little common sense from SCOTUS.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/25/supreme-court-bans-warrantless-cell-phone-searches/
Like Hussein's goon squad gives a fork what the Courts say?
True. At least it may slow them down a tad.
Like Hussein's goon squad gives a fork what the Courts say?
This. Laws and rulings are for suckers.
Eurodriver
06-25-14, 14:37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sipTtQ_5q8k
Nothing really new here -- generally you secure the phone to preserve evidence and get a warrant. Anyone acting differently was already risking it getting tossed.
True. At least it may slow them down a tad.
Nah. Everything will be a major security risk now. It will keep the locals at bay to a better degree, but the Feds will keep doing what they want in the name of national security.
In all seriousness it is a bit if common sense from the court. Unexpected, but I'll take it none the less.
Nothing really new here -- generally you secure the phone to preserve evidence and get a warrant. Anyone acting differently was already risking it getting tossed.
A lot of the effect will have nothing to with risk of pending charges getting tossed. Search cell phone of a dealer, pimp, gang member, etc. And you get a list of known associates, then let them go. Now that is not going to happen. It will also slow-down quasi govt officials such as school administrators from searching phones. Could have wide reaching effects.
Eurodriver
06-25-14, 16:09
A lot of the effect will have nothing to with risk of pending charges getting tossed. Search cell phone of a dealer, pimp, gang member, etc. And you get a list of known associates, then let them go. Now that is not going to happen. It will also slow-down quasi govt officials such as school administrators from searching phones. Could have wide reaching effects.
None of that sounds bad to me. Did I misunderstand your post?
Why should I be on 5-0's radar because I have a friend or acquaintance who breaks the law?
Moose-Knuckle
06-25-14, 16:48
Now maybe SCOTUS can do something about We the People being tracked (Stringray) via celluar phone . . . HAH, who am I kid'n?!
Moose-Knuckle
06-25-14, 16:49
None of that sounds bad to me. Did I misunderstand your post?
Why should I be on 5-0's radar because I have a friend or acquaintance who breaks the law?
That would make you a "known associate" of said friend.
Nothing really new here -- generally you secure the phone to preserve evidence and get a warrant. Anyone acting differently was already risking it getting tossed.
there were differences in each judicial district, which is why this went to the supreme court. now the law of the land is final, there is no longer any discrepancy. the search of cellphones will require consent, one of the conventional warrant exceptions, or warrant.
Nah. Everything will be a major security risk now. It will keep the locals at bay to a better degree, but the Feds will keep doing what they want in the name of national security.
In all seriousness it is a bit if common sense from the court. Unexpected, but I'll take it none the less.
this applies equally to federal and state/local law enforcement. you're probably alluding to the idea that intelligence agencies do not do law enforcement, however not all feds work for the intelligence community.
A lot of the effect will have nothing to with risk of pending charges getting tossed. Search cell phone of a dealer, pimp, gang member, etc. And you get a list of known associates, then let them go. Now that is not going to happen. It will also slow-down quasi govt officials such as school administrators from searching phones. Could have wide reaching effects.
a list of known associates? because all criminals use the full names of their friends in their phones...
the case at hand was discussed on npr today and the defense attorney of case at hand was interviewed. the phone was searched at the time of arrest and then it was further forensically searched at a later time in the absence of a warrant.
this execution of procedure was consistent with a prior ruling from a lower court which stated law enforcement had the ability to search a phone in a reasonable amount of time, with the interpretation of reasonable allowing for law enforcement some short time period (maybe days) to acquire the right tools for analysis. essentially the lower court said that no one carries around a computer that specializes in phone analysis while on duty, law enforcement can take the phone to a safe location as evidence to have it further analyzed as a search incident to arrest.
the defense attorney of the subject case basically told a story that indicated his client was surely guilty of being a gang member. the evidence that was discovered on the phone included video of gang members fighting, pictures his client and another alleged gang member "playing around throwing gang signs," other identifiers of gang membership on the phone like monikers and abbreviations of the gang's name. such evidence was used to secure a gang enhancement for the gun charge for which this gang banger was convicted.
as kevinb said, this doesn't change a lot for such cases. there will be an inevitable discovery for evidence like this. the court has determined such information is private, certainly it should be. when someone is arrested for a legitimate reason and their phone is seized legitimately as evidence, law enforcement should legitimately apply for a warrant stating the probable cause to believe incriminating evidence exists within the phone and then use technological forensic tools ad procedures to access that evidence to secure convictions.
a list of known associates? because all criminals use the full names of their friends in their phones...
Don't need a name, just a number and a Stingray. Most major PDs as well as Feds have Intel units, the ability to construct criminal networks is vital to their efforts. I have first-hand knowledge of this since the 80s.
ForTehNguyen
06-25-14, 17:38
oh look someone actually read 4A. Kinda sad at the same time that this had to be brought up to the SCOTUS for something so blatantly obvious
Interesting that the court unanimously agreed that the new technological advancements that lead to cell phones and how we use them, does not affect our basic right of privacy as the Founders understood it.
However, the same left wing justices argue that because they only had muskets in 1787, the natural right of self defence doesn't apply to AR 15s etc.
The fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the Founders fought.
Don't need a name, just a number and a Stingray. Most major PDs as well as Feds have Intel units, the ability to construct criminal networks is vital to their efforts. I have first-hand knowledge of this since the 80s.
that's something different than what I had read. now that I reread what you're saying I think you're quite right. the repercussions will affect these.
Moose-Knuckle
06-25-14, 17:59
Now that SCOTUS has made this ruling, wouldn't it be nice if they forced the NSA to play by the say rules . . .
Now maybe SCOTUS can do something about We the People being tracked (Stringray) via celluar phone . . . HAH, who am I kid'n?!
there already is a ruling by the supreme court regarding positional data. there should not need to be a separate ruling regarding any specific position acquisition device. the ruling is that positional data requires a warrant.
Now that SCOTUS has made this ruling, wouldn't it be nice if they forced the NSA to play by the say rules . . .
i pose a question to you. should we play by law enforcement rules when we conduct war? certainly it's getting there if you read any of the modern special operations memoirs. is that what we should do though?
shall we make safe haven even within our own borders for people who are conducting war against us?
I mean there's currently no such thing as treason anymore. so maybe we should let foreign spies do whatever they like, maybe we should just give away the whole house and the dog too.
you want to put restraints on the nsa, and I imagine the cia and the dia and all the other alphabets that you may or may not even know exist. why? because you don't want us to conduct war? or you would like us to conduct war in the most losing way possible?
perhaps we should welcome terrorists into the united states, set them up and just tell them the best soft targets to hit and then arm them to do so. oh wait, that's a conspiracy theory that you guys already used.
i pose a question to you. should we play by law enforcement rules when we conduct war? certainly it's getting there if you read any of the modern special operations memoirs. is that what we should do though?
shall we make safe haven even within our own borders for people who are conducting war against us?
I mean there's currently no such thing as treason anymore. so maybe we should let foreign spies do whatever they like, maybe we should just give away the whole house and the dog too.
you want to put restraints on the nsa, and I imagine the cia and the dia and all the other alphabets that you may or may not even know exist. why? because you don't want us to conduct war? or you would like us to conduct war in the most losing way possible?
perhaps we should welcome terrorists into the united states, set them up and just tell them the best soft targets to hit and then arm them to do so. oh wait, that's a conspiracy theory that you guys already used.
You're acting like a 7 year old that didn't get a toy. People expecting agencies to follow the Constitution shouldn't cause you discomfort. If it does maybe you should apply for employment in North Korea, China, Iran etc. They're looking for good men.
You're acting like a 7 year old that didn't get a toy. People expecting agencies to follow the Constitution shouldn't cause you discomfort. If it does maybe you should apply for employment in North Korea, China, Iran etc. They're looking for good men.
answer the questions. what is your ideal scenario and what position does it put us in as far as conducting war?
perhaps you don't like that the inevitable deduction that logical reasoning brings is that your single-sided idealism makes you anti-manly-warfighting-supporter. otherwise just outline the alternative perfect world you'd rather to live in. describe it for us.
i pose a question to you. should we play by law enforcement rules when we conduct war? certainly it's getting there if you read any of the modern special operations memoirs. is that what we should do though?
shall we make safe haven even within our own borders for people who are conducting war against us?
I mean there's currently no such thing as treason anymore. so maybe we should let foreign spies do whatever they like, maybe we should just give away the whole house and the dog too.
you want to put restraints on the nsa, and I imagine the cia and the dia and all the other alphabets that you may or may not even know exist. why? because you don't want us to conduct war? or you would like us to conduct war in the most losing way possible?
perhaps we should welcome terrorists into the united states, set them up and just tell them the best soft targets to hit and then arm them to do so. oh wait, that's a conspiracy theory that you guys already used.
1. "Shall we make safe haven?" -No, we need to follow due process. The old tired excuse of "saving lives" is NOT enough of an excuse to subvert the Constitution. I choose to live free or die and not live under the tyranny of an abusive, intrusive, Nanny Government. Again, if you want that there are plenty of options for you. I might also suggest you read and understand the Constitution and the form of our Constitutionally LIMITED Republic. Government, contrary to popular belief, is NOT the answer to everything.
2. "So maybe we should let foreign spies do whatever they like?" Why not, we can't secure our borders, using this as an excuse to spy on everyone is total BS. At exactly what point are we no better than Communist China or the Russians? They spy on their citizens too.
3. "I mean there's currently no such thing as treason anymore." -I don't' even know what this means, or what it has to do with anything in this thread.
4. "you want to put restraints on the nsa" -Yes, if he doesn't, I most certainly do. Too many Government agencies have proven themselves untrustworthy, regardless of the TLA associated with their name.
5. "why? because you don't want us to conduct war?" Conducting War is never an excuse to subvert the Constitution, we are not conducting a war within our borders.
6. "or you would like us to conduct war in the most losing way possible?" -I don't know what this means either. We are not conducting a war inside this Country and anyone suggesting we are, is guilty of spreading hyperbole to make their jobs easier or violate the Constitution.
Anything else?
Moose-Knuckle
06-25-14, 18:43
there already is a ruling by the supreme court regarding positional data. there should not need to be a separate ruling regarding any specific position acquisition device. the ruling is that positional data requires a warrant.
That sounds all well and nice and in theory should suffice but if we are intellectually honest with ourselves we know the Federal Government never plays by its own rules.
Moose-Knuckle
06-25-14, 19:00
i pose a question to you. should we play by law enforcement rules when we conduct war? certainly it's getting there if you read any of the modern special operations memoirs. is that what we should do though?
The mission and scope of US civilian LE operating in CONUS are vastly different than that of the DoD conducting military operations in foreign nations against enemy combatants. Last I checked the Constitution does not apply to anyone other than US Citizens inside of the US.
shall we make safe haven even within our own borders for people who are conducting war against us?
We already have in case you are not keeping up with what is going on our Southern border.
I mean there's currently no such thing as treason anymore. so maybe we should let foreign spies do whatever they like, maybe we should just give away the whole house and the dog too.
Who needs to let spies in when we have such great Americans like the Clintons that freely sell state secrets to our enemies for campaign financing.
you want to put restraints on the nsa, and I imagine the cia and the dia and all the other alphabets that you may or may not even know exist. why? because you don't want us to conduct war? or you would like us to conduct war in the most losing way possible?
LOL, it has NOTHING to with "us conducting wars" and it have has EVERYTHING to do with just who the Federal Government is going to war with i.e. We the People. Since you asked I want restraints on the Federal Government to keep them from spying on their own citizens, classifying military veterans as domestic terrorists, and so on and so forth.
perhaps we should welcome terrorists into the united states, set them up and just tell them the best soft targets to hit and then arm them to do so. oh wait, that's a conspiracy theory that you guys already used.
Aww yes, the old "conspiracy theory" card. Amazing that someone who apologizes for the Surveillance State would go there . . .
1. "Shall we make safe haven?" -No, we need to follow due process. The old tired excuse of "saving lives" is tired and not enough of an excuse to subvert the constitution.
is there due process in war? due process takes time right? in fact the very phrase due process suggests that the time due should not be circumvented in favor of a more abbreviated process. so in conducting war, shall we give the enemy due process? and this is precisely why the sof memoirs complain that their hands are tied. the catch and release that happens in united states law enforcement, the recidivism, it's well and good on the battlefield now too. maybe that's just how it goes. maybe I should not lament such inefficiency.
2. "So maybe we should let foreign spies do whatever they like?" Why not, we can't secure our borders using this as an excuse to spy on everyone is total BS at exactly what point are we no better than Communist China or the Russians?
at least you're willing to say that we should allow foreign spies to do whatever they like. thanks.
we're nowhere close to Russia or China. in both those countries men can just walk into your house and look through your computer and walk out, leaving their cigarette smoke in their wake. such a thing is inconceivable in the united states and it is _not_ getting there. you just had a supreme court ruling that says that men can't even look into your phone after you've been arrested doing something naughty! such is the _protection_ even the criminal americans have. spy on everyone. as if there were that many eyes. as if each and every American were so damned important that it warrant someone that gets paid high 5 figure salaries to peruse their life. and what would these intelligence agencies be perusing? phone bills. that's essentially what "metadata" is. yes, this is certainly the invasion you've all been fearing. I wonder how easy it would be to conduct business on the internet if it were the case that when you want to search for something, you have to go ask the company that you want information from if they can respond to your request, and only after they reply can you get your search results. yet this is what is being mandated now.
so that the people trying to conduct war can be delayed.
3. "I mean there's currently no such thing as treason anymore." -I don't' even know what this means or what it has to do with anything in this thread.
snowden is a hero right? metadata is evil secret sauce the government is trying to use against you.
4. "you want to put restraints on the nsa" -Yes, if he doesn't I most certainly do. Too many Government agencies have proven themselves to be untrustworthy, regardless of the TLA associated with their name.
5. "why? because you don't want us to conduct war?" Conducting War is never an excuse to subvert the Constitution. We are not conducting a war within out borders.
so you don't believe that there are people within the united states who maintain contact with people outside the united states that support ongoing terrorist activity? or would you simply not consider such as conducting war?
6. "or you would like us to conduct war in the most losing way possible?" -I don't know what this means either. We are not conducting a war inside this Country and anyone suggesting we are is guilty of spreading hyperbole to make their jobs easier or violate the Constitution.
here's a bit of hyperbole: there are people who try to get things done. there are other people who just want to criticize and single-sidedly advocate for the opposite ideal on the other end of the spectrum of whatever the former was doing. perhaps you actually don't realize, but the allegation that all of the united states citizens are flat out LOSING their privacy and their rights is in itself a bit of hyperbole. even in the case that the nsa collected lots and lots of metadata and even in the case that they listened to certain phone calls without conventional law enforcement warrants, but through a secret court's approval process, does that mean the privacy is lost?
I would argue no, because the massive majority of the data was never used, never queried, never accessed. it was retained so that it could be readily accessed when it might be needed. it would be the expeditiousness of accessing the data that is valued by the intelligence community, not the data itself. the data can always be acquired, but if you want to insert due process into intelligence gathering that regards war, then I have to question what other aspects of war you would like to insert due process into? perhaps all of war... and there's actually nothing wrong with you having an opinion that all war should be conducted with due process. at least admit it. however, I have a feeling that when it is framed that way, people don't want to agree with that sentiment.
the fourth amendment does not say that all searches and seizures are verboten. it says unreasonable. how far must the government go to show reasonableness? to the point where the mission is ineffective and impossible to conduct? bear in mind what I said earlier, that the nsa did not just willy nilly do whatever it wanted. there were documents and legislation that outlined what they were to do and how they were allowed to do it. there was a court formed. how far must the government go to prove to the people that they're not trying to go after your pursuit of happiness? meanwhile has your pursuit of happiness even been infringed upon? seriously ask yourself that.
sometimes it sounds like people are screaming for a world where nothing should be accomplished by the government. in that case, just admit it. just admit that we shouldn't fight wars. we shouldn't catch criminals. just let the world be the way it is. very likely the case will be that things won't even change that much, because after all life sucks and then you die.
That sounds all well and nice and in theory should suffice but if we are intellectually honest with ourselves we know the Federal Government never plays by its own rules.
based on that perspective it would be inconsequential if the supreme court made a ruling specifically about cell site emulators.
Eurodriver
06-25-14, 19:29
sometimes it sounds like people are screaming for a world where nothing should be accomplished by the government. in that case, just admit it. just admit that we shouldn't fight wars. we shouldn't catch criminals. just let the world be the way it is. very likely the case will be that things won't even change that much, because after all life sucks and then you die.
Now you're acting like a five year old girl. Do you honestly believe this or are you exaggerating to prove a point?
The mission and scope of US civilian LE operating in CONUS are vastly different than that of the DoD conducting military operations in foreign nations against enemy combatants. Last I checked the Constitution does not apply to anyone other than US Citizens inside of the US.
then what happens when there are foreign nationals within our borders. visa holders, legal permanent residents? rich people who are allowed in because they're rich. illegals that snuck in because of whatever reason, nefarious or otherwise. how do you address those people? who the hell do you think are communicating with terrorists outside the united states? who do you think these nsa programs are targeting? YOU? laughable. those people I mentioned... probably.
We already have in case you are not keeping up with what is going on our Southern border.
I don't agree with what is happening there. I maintain the position that the lax enforcement of immigration laws and deportation proceedings has facilitated this debacle and what's happening is the natural outcome. everything has consequences. feel good stuff is for the birds.
Who needs to let spies in when we have such great Americans like the Clintons that freely sell state secrets to our enemies for campaign financing.
don't bait and switch. at least answer my hyperbole with a hyperbole of your own.
LOL, it has NOTHING to with "us conducting wars" and it have has EVERYTHING to do with just who the Federal Government is going to war with i.e. We the People. Since you asked I want restraints on the Federal Government to keep them from spying on their own citizens, classifying military veterans as domestic terrorists, and so on and so forth.
ah, so you do support the military. hence your reluctance to admit that the nsa's operations are there to support intelligence given to military personnel to conduct real life operations that are emulated by airsofters everywhere.
Triny,
You're either a Government employee, very young, or just plain ignorant of reality, regardless of the facts staring you in the face.
No Government is altruistic and the larger it grows the more unemployable fools, without principles, you have running around with paychecks and power.
"Our" big Government is a self promoting, self fulfilling prophecy. You employ enough regular folks in Government and you've suddenly lost all the checks and balances provided by the voting booth.
Import a crap load of illegals and all the better, you now control the Big Government, free shit for everyone, agenda.
You need look no further than the IRS Scandal, the many Attorney General scandals and countless others, all with Zero accountability for anyone, with the best part being no-one cares, just as long as their gravy train keeps pouring the gravy or they keep getting their free shit.
Very little of this has anything to do with the SCOTUS doing the right thing. Which they did........sorry for the foray into politics folks.
OUT
Now you're acting like a five year old girl. Do you honestly believe this or are you exaggerating to prove a point?
how far off am I on the exaggeration? why aren't you answering with what you see as the alternative? Obama said that now the phone companies will keep the data, doesn't mean the nsa ain't gonna get theirs when they ask for it. is this good enough for you? or do you want even more single-sidedness?
if me demanding your intellectual honesty makes me a 5 year old girl, that would say a lot more about you than me...
SeriousStudent
06-25-14, 20:21
STOP.
You can talk about the SCOTUS ruling. If you want to talk about each other, you will not need a smartphone to read the infractions you will get.
No Government is altruistic.
i would go even further and with intellectual honesty say no one, nothing is altruistic (except Jesus). it's all about self preservation. absolutely the government is interested in self preservation. the united states as a nation, as an ensemble of individual states, each city and all the individuals which compose each city are interested in self preservation and selfish agenda.
"Our" big Government is a self promoting, self fulfilling prophecy. You employ enough regular folks in Government and you've suddenly lost all the check provided by the voting booth. The Lemmings aren't stupid enough to vote for what is correct, when there is even a remote chance they will be negatively impacted.
I disagree that lemmings are too stupid to vote for what is correct. we've voted for what's correct in the past. there are long lists of presidents who fared well. there are long lists of presidents that individuals here and elsewhere would tout as favorable. you can't blanket it and say all government is bad. you could, but that is also a bit shortsighted and it harkens back to the singlesidedness I mentioned previously. because if I lay out the facts on why the government performs a needed function and how that allows modern day luxurious, leisurely, prosperous, meaningful, enjoyable life possible, people who are single sided won't want to admit that.
Import a crap load of illegals and all the better, you now control the Big Government, free shit for everyone, agenda. The folks like me, who are funding it, are too busy working to stop long enough to take notice, that is what is starting to change and what is fueling the Tea Party. My annual tax bill far exceeds the median household income and I am in no way anywhere approaching "Rich".
to be honest, I don't like importing illegals. however, I also have the perspective that it's a bit hard to keep them out. if there were a war on immigration we'd be losing that too, along with the war on terror and the war on drugs and the war on poverty and the war on everything. I don't want us to fill up our borders with illegals, but even more so, i don't want our country to become un-American. if within one generation all these immigrants become hard working contributing members of American society, their little trespass might be forgivable in my book. that remains to be seen and i will maintain my disapproval of the current immigration status.
You need look no further than the IRS Scandal, the many Attorney General scandals and countless others, all with Zero accountability for anyone, with the best part being no-one cares, just as long as their gravy train keeps pouring the gravy or they keep getting their free shit.
I am not trying to offend anyone. This crap really pisses me off if you can't tell.
i wouldn't ever disagree that sometimes you have to clean house, you have to root out evil, you have to whip the lazy into shape. this goes for any institution. if you were to say you want stricter hiring standards and a comprehensive reform on how easy it is to terminate poor performers in the government, i'm with you! you are right to be mad about stuff like this. but like all things that make the headlines, this is only the 1%. the majority of the stories are people going to work, doing their jobs, the world keeps turning and many people continue to pursue happiness. every once in a while i'm sure you get to also, admit it.
Very little of this has anything to do with the SCOTUS doing the right thing. Which they did........sorry for the foray into politics folks.
OUT
i don't disagree with much of what you said. i'm just here trying to keep everyone honest about expectations and what the logical terminus is for some positions of thought.
There is no possible way to spin this decision as bad. If you need that information to immediately save a life, you may cite exigent circumstances. If you can't, then you have time to get a warrant. If you don't have legitimate probable cause to search the phone, then you shouldn't be searching it any more than you should be able to walk into someone's home without a warrant and search their computer. There's nothing in that cell phone that poses a threat to the arresting or detaining officer. Do it right or don't do it at all. If you can't handle that, then find another line of work. :(
answer the questions. what is your ideal scenario and what position does it put us in as far as conducting war?
perhaps you don't like that the inevitable deduction that logical reasoning brings is that your single-sided idealism makes you anti-manly-warfighting-supporter. otherwise just outline the alternative perfect world you'd rather to live in. describe it for us.
You posed no sensible questions. Freedom means doing stuff the hard way sometimes. It's just the sacrifices you make. If we have to trade our Freedoms and Values to beat the "terrorists" they already won. Why not make them earn the victory?
Bolt_Overide
06-26-14, 08:37
While I welcome this decision, and think it is correct. I really don't have any faith that its going to change anything.
Can't say I'm surprised by this decision. Frankly, I'm OK with it. You can ask for consent, but be prepared to show that consent was voluntary. Many agencies already have stated or implied preferences for warrants in cases involving phones.
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-14, 19:26
You're either a Government employee, very young, or just plain ignorant of reality, regardless of the facts staring you in the face.
HK, if you have never read The Gentleman's Guide to Forum Spies (spooks, Feds, trolls, et al.) I highly suggest it. Once you learn the different techniques such as forum sliding, topic dilution, concensus cracking and apply it to some who post here things become clear.
Moose-Knuckle
06-26-14, 19:35
Freedom means doing stuff the hard way sometimes. It's just the sacrifices you make. If we have to trade our Freedoms and Values to beat the "terrorists" they already won. Why not make them earn the victory?
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/BenFranklinQuote.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/BenFranklinQuote.jpg.html)
Two great posts in a row Moose. Bravo.
Glad to hear that the Supreme Court ruled.
You posed no sensible questions. Freedom means doing stuff the hard way sometimes. It's just the sacrifices you make. If we have to trade our Freedoms and Values to beat the "terrorists" they already won. Why not make them earn the victory?
is there freedom in war? should we afford our freedoms to our enemies? are we allowed to ask our nation for some compromise's in order to conduct war?
it's very clean cut when you want to talk about domestic law enforcement, but what the nsa does is not law enforcement. the reason why I resort to hyperbole is because I don't find it very far off from what people demand. if I were to say the government should never be able to see anyone's metadata, how many here to would opposed to that? and in such a case, how effective would law enforcement or war conduct become?
see this is efficacy, efficiency, expediency, vs. freedom. there are other ideals that compete with freedom that would be reserved for a different conversation. how far are you willing to sacrifice efficacy, efficiency and expedience, in the name of freedom? would you just single sidedly sacrifice it all without even a mere consideration for the consequence? just purely based on idealism?
if you were to consider for a moment that compromise were acceptable, how far must the government go to assure you that metadata is not being misused? seriously ask yourself that without citing news articles and fanfare that the media drums up and please do so without some sort of emotional response. just mentally, how far _must_ the government go to convince you it's not participating in a giant program just to screw over joe the plumber. is such a proof even possible for you personally? if it is not, what is the point of this discussion? if people wish to be blindly against any such thing, then there's no debate, merely blind idealism. you're free to be idealistically blind. it's your right.
you say that we should make terrorists fight for the win. I think we should kill terrorists. I think we should use the metric of dead terrorists to measure how well we're doing... dead terrorists require planning, combat, intel and a repeat of that cycle. there have been many acronyms to sum up that cycle over the years. so the question is do you want to fully arm the people at war with all the tools they want/need. or do you want to determine that what they need isn't that important and then just tell them to make due with something less? you're allowed to say the latter. but say it definitively.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/BenFranklinQuote.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/BenFranklinQuote.jpg.html)
ah yes, the good old ben franklin quote. except you're already a hypocrite as you've already participated fully in a government and nation that is rife with compromises in freedom for the sake of safety, for the sake of equality, for the sake of fairness, prosperity, individualistic gain, selfishness, feel good politics, etc etc etc. you act as if there were ever some lofty world that wasn't full of competing ideals that require compromise. you act as if an blindly idealistic world is not only possible, but favorable. have some intellectual honesty.
it's also interesting that no one decides to parse this quote as much as antis parse the 2nd amendment.
what if you trade a little freedom for A LOT of security. compare our security to say, any sub Saharan African country, many of the countries in the middle east, mexico, a lot of south America. we have a lot of security... and it costs us a little freedom doesn't it?
Moose-Knuckle
06-27-14, 03:58
ah yes, the good old ben franklin quote. except you're already a hypocrite as you've already participated fully in a government and nation that is rife with compromises in freedom for the sake of safety, for the sake of equality, for the sake of fairness, prosperity, individualistic gain, selfishness, feel good politics, etc etc etc. you act as if there were ever some lofty world that wasn't full of competing ideals that require compromise. you act as if an blindly idealistic world is not only possible, but favorable. have some intellectual honesty.
it's also interesting that no one decides to parse this quote as much as antis parse the 2nd amendment.
what if you trade a little freedom for A LOT of security. compare our security to say, any sub Saharan African country, many of the countries in the middle east, mexico, a lot of south America. we have a lot of security... and it costs us a little freedom doesn't it?
Spoken like a true statist.
You type all that tripe and attempt to insult, try and dilute the topic all you want it only exposes you for the troll that you are.
Oh, and your grammar blows but you know that already.
ClearedHot
06-27-14, 04:15
Now you're acting like a five year old girl. Do you honestly believe this or are you exaggerating to prove a point?
Davey aka Trinytroll is actually a 32 year old Asian male that lives in Southern California. He spends his time trolling various gun and car forums all over the Interwebs.
He's never served a day in the military or in LE.
I snipped most of your post because I wasn't smart enough to figure out what you were talking about.
if I were to say the government should never be able to see anyone's metadata, how many here to would opposed to that? and in such a case, how effective would law enforcement or war conduct become?
No one is saying police/NSA can't investigate in a legal manner. So no need to go to an extreme position.
if you were to consider for a moment that compromise were acceptable,
I'm not going to ever consider compromise acceptable. I will tolerate some misdeeds under extreme conditions. Blanket surveillance or going though a phone during a routine stop or arrest certainly doesn't come near such conditions.
I think we should use the metric of dead terrorists to measure how well we're doing...
A proven poor indicator of performance. If I recall correctly we stacked up piles of VC. Lost. We've also piled up mounds of Tally and AQ. Lost.
why aren't you answering with what you see as the alternative?
One does not need an alternative answer to point out an idea or how something is done is wrong. There is no reason to continue driving a train towards a collapsed bridge because the only track available leads to it. Choosing a course of action that satisfies honor is not easy, nor is it intended to be. If it were, it wouldn't be an honorable one. If we do not act perfectly honorable, so be it. We are human. We can choose to act with honor, but we can only strive to be perfect. To justify acting dishonorably because no one can offer an alternative is deplorable. The train can be stopped. New tracks can be laid. Before an alternative can be found, it must be acknowledged one is needed. It means hard work, hard choices and risk but the rewards are much greater than driving the train to disaster
Davey aka Trinytroll is actually a 32 year old Asian male that lives in Southern California. He spends his time trolling various gun and car forums all over the Interwebs.
He's never served a day in the military or in LE.
That explains a lot.....thanks.
ah yes, the good old ben franklin quote. except you're already a hypocrite as you've already participated fully in a government and nation that is rife with compromises in freedom for the sake of safety, for the sake of equality, for the sake of fairness, prosperity, individualistic gain, selfishness, feel good politics, etc etc etc. you act as if there were ever some lofty world that wasn't full of competing ideals that require compromise. you act as if an blindly idealistic world is not only possible, but favorable. have some intellectual honesty.
it's also interesting that no one decides to parse this quote as much as antis parse the 2nd amendment.
what if you trade a little freedom for A LOT of security. compare our security to say, any sub Saharan African country, many of the countries in the middle east, mexico, a lot of south America. we have a lot of security... and it costs us a little freedom doesn't it?
I'd considered attempting to refute your nonsense and explain what safeguards need to be in place. Instead I think most everyone on this forum can simply agree that you are "off the reservation" on this topic. :rolleyes:
Last time I checked we were not at war; and we are definitely NOT at war with US citizens living on US soil. So all this war talk is moot.
I expect that all branches of the government abide by the laws of the land, the principal of which is the Constitution. There are ways for the NSA or any agency to declare valid special circumstances and troll people's lives including those of US citizens living the US. That is NOT what is happening today and we all know it. I don't care of its metadata, or petadata it's mine and you can't have it without showing good reason for the snooping. Not quite sure why that is such a hard concept to get through to people.
SeriousStudent
06-27-14, 18:40
And we are done with this thread since people cannot read English and pay attention.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.