Oregon "standoff"

[trish]

Oh you poor poor boy. Your "rights" to participate in a market free of regulation against fraud and deception are being abridged! How awful. You and your neighbors can't buy shoulder fired missile launchers without attracting the attentions of nosy government bureaucrats. How horrible for you. You can't even let your dog shit in the park without some health official nagging you to pick it up. Am I right? I had a right to go bird-watching at Malheur Wildlife Refuge this winter, every person in America did. It's our land. It belongs to all of us collectively. Then a handful of armed yahoos who don't understand the difference between democracy and anarchy took it over and vandalized the place. Such hard lives we live, right? I mean compared to that of Frederick Douglass. He only had to endure the knowledge that perhaps someday in the future a couple of assholes in a pornographic chat room will twist his words to suit their own conclusions. That's what you get when you learn to read and write.

Speaking of rights, I'm wondering if I'll be turned away at the voting booth this November because of new State voter registration laws. I'm sure you're against them too.

[martin48]

All you need in America is a fucking gun. Not certain why you are even bothering to have a election.

[broncofan]

Did you consider that even in modern times, people face a deprivation of liberty?

None of the examples you give. I have difficulty comparing the withholding of taxes to a person being classified as property. I don't think the government preventing consumer products from having lead in them is comparable either. Spying by looking at metadata and other electronic transmissions can be intrusive but is trivial compared to being separated from your relatives, subjected to forced labor for no wage, and being beaten or killed at the whim of a slave-owner. All of your examples are shit and an embarrassment. Thumbs down my post....it doesn't change anything and can be easily reciprocated.

[broncofan]

Even if the NSA intrusions were fourth amendment violations, there are at least other interests the government is trying to safeguard in the process. The remedy for constitutional violations is that evidence is excluded from trial, laws are struck down as unconstitutional, or officers are enjoined from taking certain actions. It is contemplated as part of life that there will be judicial remedies for constitutional violations.

The institution of slavery by contrast was something extraordinary. There was no weighing of interests; it was the objectification and commodification of your fellow human beings. It was inhumane, sadistic, and greedy. It should not be placed on a continuum with everyday intrusions that a court may remedy by issuing an injunction or by excluding evidence from trial. Nobody who valued African-Americans as people could have ever attempted to justify slavery as a balancing of interests. So, it does not make sense for it to be compared to potential constitutional violations where a balancing of rights and exigency takes place.

I just wanted to add that distinction to my previous conclusion that your complaints are entirely trivial.

[broncofan]

It would also be nice if some of these anti-government nuts would put the same energy into civil rights advocacy as they put into abusing the memory of former slaves and abolitionists. Why is slavery not used as a lesson for how we should treat minorities but instead the basis of flimsy slippery slope arguments by organizations and groups that despise minorities in any other context? Enforcing federal law on federal land is not the first step to tyranny. If the government spies on you, you don't not know how Frederick Douglass felt. . Please children. We have a court system and you can challenge virtually any harm committed against you.

[dreamon]

Even if the NSA intrusions were fourth amendment violations, there are at least other interests the government is trying to safeguard in the process. The remedy for constitutional violations is that evidence is excluded from trial, laws are struck down as unconstitutional, or officers are enjoined from taking certain actions. It is contemplated as part of life that there will be judicial remedies for constitutional violations.

The institution of slavery by contrast was something extraordinary. There was no weighing of interests; it was the objectification and commodification of your fellow human beings. It was inhumane, sadistic, and greedy. It should not be placed on a continuum with everyday intrusions that a court may remedy by issuing an injunction or by excluding evidence from trial. Nobody who valued African-Americans as people could have ever attempted to justify slavery as a balancing of interests. So, it does not make sense for it to be compared to potential constitutional violations where a balancing of rights and exigency takes place.

I just wanted to add that distinction to my previous conclusion that your complaints are entirely trivial.

You probably consider what Apple is doing to be obstructionist. What a dick.

[trish]

The Apple controversy is probably a good topic for a different thread.

If it were possible to hack into that one phone (was it Farook's) without creating a universal software-key for all Apple phones, then I would say Apple should comply with the subpoena. This (I think) would maintain the personal privacy of the larger public and provide valuable information for keeping the larger public safe from terrorists. On the downside it would not be so good for Apple's reputation and it would put wedge in the door making many us feel less secure in our privacy.

As Apple explains it, it is not possible to hack into just one phone. They would have to write software that is essentially a universal key. There would be no way to guarantee the security of key. Not only might law enforcement agencies use it in unwarranted ways, but it would inevitably leak into the public domain where criminals would use it to commit fraud, theft and other nefarious crimes.

One question is, is Apple correct? They're certainly between a rock and hard place. Most hard-ass-let's-carpet-bomb-'em-to-oblivion types are against anyone or anything that might provide protection for a terrorist. Libertarians, on the other knee, jerk the other way. Both are right wing stances. The rest of us are aware of the complexities and nuances of the issue.

Currently, I lean in favor of Apple (as if any action will depend upon my leaning - dickish or not) because I think the case they make is probably correct. Certainly if Apple writes a skeleton key, it will eventually end up in the hands of criminals. The risk of being a victim from illicit use of such a key is (I think) greater than the risk of being a victim of terrorism. The only problem with this argument is it relies on an assumption (Apple has to make a universal key to crack Farook's phone) that I'm taking on authority (Apple's). Another seemingly relevant question is: once the key is made, can all other phones be quickly updated by having customers download and install modified OS's that defeat the key?

[trish]

I created another thread for the continuation of the topic of Apple vs National Security.

[broncofan]

You probably consider what Apple is doing to be obstructionist. What a dick.

There was nothing in my post to indicate that.

In the apple case, it is not a matter of whether the government has cause to search one phone, as it appears they do. It is whether they should have access to a universal key that would make it possible for them to search other phones (even if they promise they will not).

Nothing in my previous post should be construed to indicate I am okay with fourth amendment violations either. I was only saying that when one's constitutional rights have been violated, it is not cause for rebellion but is redressable by a court (often it is a court that needs to arbitrate whether there has been a violation to begin with; this is one of the main functions of the judiciary!).

[broncofan]

That was the "even if" part of my post you seized on. I don't think the Bundys have been unjustly deprived of liberty. As they sit in jail cells they have been deprived of liberty, but nothing there is inconsistent with due process.