

Snowden's Constitution vs Obama's Constitution - honzzz
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130703/00121023700/snowdens-constitution-vs-obamas-constitution.shtml

======
gruseom
The OP is (mostly) a sober analysis of the constitutional issues raised by
automatic mass surveillance. Whether one agrees or disagrees, it's
(relatively) high-quality content that an informed author put some serious
effort into. As far as Snowden articles go it is surely in the upper
percentiles of HN-appropriateness. How about we follow its lead here and focus
on the content [1]?

The author's main point is that the Supreme Court has interpreted the word
"reasonable" in the Fourth Amendment ("unreasonable searches and seizures") to
mean "what ordinary citizens find reasonable". In other words, the meaning of
the constitution here is supposed to fluctuate with public opinion. That's
interesting, and something I've never heard before. Is this a standard view?
Or has the author improvised it?

[1] Does not count: lurid speculation about what the government would like to
do to Snowden; blatant trolls that degrade the discussion intentionally.

~~~
tptacek
I think one probably wants to be careful about phrases like "supposed to
fluctuate", because it's a stretch to say that the framers wrote the 4th
Amendment expecting technology and social mores to continually redefine the
meaning of the 4th Amendment over time. It's often more profitable to examine
what precise concern animated the language and then project that concern
across time.

Another way to look at the "reasonableness" requirement is that it's a
deliberate constitutional punt to the judiciary; the word "reasonable" begs
for judicial interpretation.

But no, I don't think the author of this post invented that interpretation of
the 4th Amendment, and I think that interpretation leads to a sensible place
in these circumstances.

------
lifeguard
don't forget pres signing statements:

[http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm](http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Signing_state...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement#Signing_statements_in_the_Obama_Administration)

~~~
tptacek
Presidential signing statements don't have the force of law. They're
predictive of how an administration will use the discretion granted to it by
the law and the Constitution, and sometimes (for instance in Bush 2's case)
predictive of ways in which the administration will exceed its authority, but
the reality is that the Executive can't "fill in the blanks" on laws unless
the Legislature authorizes that.

------
ck2
Think about the massive diplomatic fallout the US government risked yesterday
with getting all those countries to deny airspace to the President of Bolivia
until his jet ran out of fuel and they could stop-and-frisk his sovereignty.

They want Snowden bad, like terrifyingly bad. He will never see the light of
day if they get their hands on him. His trial will have even less coverage
than Mannings's (zero) and he'll be held naked in an isolated concrete cell
somewhere and force fed ensure to "teach all the other analysts a lesson" \-
you obey or you will become a walking corpse.

~~~
honzzz
I think that what they really want is to send a message to some other
potential leaker in the future to "think twice before you leak".

I think we should be careful with speculating about horrifying consequences of
leaking illegal activities of the government to the press - we don't want to
help them spread fear (assuming we want to know the truth). Who knows... maybe
Snowden's act will really help expose and stop unconstitutional activities of
US government and Snowden will overcome the bleak reality that he is living
right now and live the rest of his life celebrated as a hero.

~~~
sneak
I think anyone in the position to leak things truly damaging now already knows
sufficient fear.

Spreading the word about their inhuman practices against those who would
attempt to do the right thing now serves the other goal: illustrating to
people why leaking is more important than ever.

Remember, there are still hundreds of NSA sysadmins going to work every day,
post-Snowden, processing this data collected on innocent people (Americans
included). It's not like they didn't know before that leaking stuff would be
the end of their life as they know it. We need to show them that it's the end
of everyone's life as they know it if they don't; that is, to get them to
question the validity of their mission in the first place.

It's about showing them the true character of just what they're protecting
with their silence.

~~~
antocv
Hundreds sysadmins?

I think tens of thousands, if not more. Thats whats worrying and horrifying
about all this for me at least. There is a whole organization, a structure, a
culture of people whos job is illegal and immoral activities, they know and
they still continue doing it as Snowden said many of them are authoritarians -
perhaps even feeling pleasure from having that power.

NSA is a big employer, and it took what 5-6 years for one leaker?

~~~
cmpxchg8
Surely the NSA has a pretty thorough screening process that you have to go
through before you're allowed to work there.

Also, when you think of the consequences of leaking ( basically giving up your
life in the USA) I'd guess most people would think twice about it and go with
the pragmatic option, the same way that most of the population is ok with the
NSA's actions as long they protect us from the terrorists.

~~~
antocv
You are right, and it is demoralizing for any future leaker.

Something can be done about the whole mess, its not all lost, but not unless a
majority is on board, and it doesnt seem to be, majority seems to be fine with
it and seem to be fine with living in fear or threats of fear.

Its like, if a few officers or groups of soldiers in Whermacht or SS begin to
question and disobey their orders to run the Einsatz-gruppe or concetratipn
camps... some few tried, they got killed or their lives destroyed.

What we can learn from Snowden is that he is one of the few heroes among us,
and that we are already too deep in the shit to do anything about it, as is
obvious to the lengths the USA would go just to catch him, a sysadmin who
showed a few powerpoints to a a few journalists.

Its DDR all over again.

