Comment by higherpurpose | Hacker News Reader

Comment by higherpurpose | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's the problem, while you say we shouldn't use the argument that "spies need 100 percent transparency", they do pretty much use the opposite argument, that we can never know anything about what they're doing, often even their overseers, because it would "endanger national security".

Plus, even though the 4th amendment clearly states that you can't even seize stuff from a person, without probable cause. Yet, they keep saying that they can, and it's ok to do it as long as they don't search it. They intentionally omit the seizure part of the 4th amendment.

Look at it this way. Would it be ok for the police to come into your home, no proper warrant other than a "general warrant", like the writ of assistance for which Americans rebelled against UK, and take your stuff, as long as they promise to not look through it?

I think that would be completely unacceptable and immediately be declared unconstitutional. Yet, NSA keeps pretending it's completely fine to take your "digital" stuff as long as they don't look at it.

> Would it be ok for the police to come into your home, no proper warrant other than a "general warrant", like the writ of assistance for which Americans rebelled against UK, and take your stuff, as long as they promise to not look through it?

Wrong question. Would it be okay for the police to come into your home, not touch anything, but just write down a list of everything they see? What if they did this without the bodily intrusion?

It is arguable whether or not the Fourth covers this. There are legitimate legal arguments that can be made for its legality. You might not agree with those arguments, and you might not find them convincing, but you can't dismiss them just because you don't like it. You have to argue that property is, in fact, being seized (which I'd disagree with you on). You have to argue that "search" is sufficient to meet the standard of the Fourth. And so on.

If anything, this is one of the most striking examples of how we have to bend over backwards in order to fit 21st century morals and ethics to codes written 200 years ago.

That isn't a far comparison to make because the British government taking my stuff deprives me of that very stuff. The US government making a copy of my digital stuff doesn't deprive me of my digital stuff.

While I agree that you can't take either government at their word, the fact that one can happen without your knowledge makes it the preferable option from both an intelligence standpoint and maybe philosophically a rights infringing standpoint. I.E. it is the intelligence version of the tree falling in the woods. Are my rights infringed if the infringement has no impact on any of my other rights or my life in general (I didn't say it can't effect your life, but for the majority of people surveyed, I would guess it doesn't)?

> That isn't a far comparison to make because the British government taking my stuff deprives me of that very stuff. The US government making a copy of my digital stuff doesn't deprive me of my digital stuff.

So, "Information wants to be secretly collected?" That has a certain symmetry to it.

This sounds like the "information want's to be free" argument people use here to justify copying movies and music, shouldn't it also then apply to your phonecall data? It's all just bits right?

Sure, but those making that argument would be right to point out the NSA should be releasing all their data under the same logic.

> the fact that one can happen without your knowledge makes it the preferable option from both an intelligence standpoint and maybe philosophically a rights infringing standpoint. I.E. it is the intelligence version of the tree falling in the woods. Are my rights infringed if the infringement has no impact on any of my other rights or my life in general

Seizure is the wrong tack. The 4th Amendment also covers searches. SCOTUS has ruled in Katz that a reasonable expectation of privacy triggers 4th Amendment protections (clarified in additional rulings).

>That isn't a far comparison to make because the British government taking my stuff deprives me of that very stuff.

That is not the reason the restrictions exist at all. It's to prevent abuse of power, not just the police stealing your stuff.

Searching your house is, in general, far less abusive than stealing your digital information. You may not keep records of your private activities, you might not have any incriminating physical items. It also takes far more effort for the police to do.

Your digital information includes everywhere you've ever been, much of your conversations, the crazy things you Googled because you were curious, the porn you've looked at, everything you've ever bought, etc. Eventually it may even include recordings from microphone and cameras as they become ubiquitous. And all this becomes a permanent record of your life. It will be stored on some computer forever, never going away.

Oh ya, and it happens without your knowledge.

> Are my rights infringed if the infringement has no impact on any of my other rights or my life in general

You're assuming no impact without evidence. Let's think about that first. Even assuming no G-men in black helicopters descend on you at any point in your life, what results from the government collecting all of this information?

The most obvious problem is, what happens if the government uses the same level of competence to keep your secrets secret as they do at anything else? What happens when some tool walks out of the NSA with a backpack full of hard drives comprising the metadata of everyone in the US for the past decade, and posts it on the internet?

The results of that are entirely predictable. Every vulnerable population whatsoever will be exposed to their antagonists. Crime bosses will be able to find informants and undercover law enforcement officers. Terrorists and criminals will be able to identify vulnerable targets. Industrial espionage and blackmail will proceed on a massive scale. Abusive spouses will find their exes. None of that reasonably classifies as "no harm no foul."

But OK, that hasn't happened yet, suppose we give them the benefit of the doubt. Uncle Sam is going to fill the server room with Marines until the end of days and keep everybody's secrets from ever leaking onto the internets. But still there is the government. If you know the government is recording your movements, are you going to be willing to visit a Communist rally to broaden your horizons or satisfy your intellectual curiosity? What about an abortion clinic, or a psychiatrist? What aren't husbands and wives going to be willing to say to each other for fear that someone could be listening? What essays aren't going to be published if their authors don't believe in their ability to remain anonymous against pervasive surveillance?

The problem with "harmless" surveillance is that it creates fear, and fear is a harm.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com