You joke about it, but with the betterment of facial recognition and Facebook, just imagine 1 scenario...
All those folks who share selfies of themselves anonymously online both of them clothed and unclothed, we are starting to see the ability to pinpoint who they are, just because they keep an online facebook.
I tried to submit a NSA* story a couple days ago about how the N S A(1) is snooping on iPhone that directly related to the FSF article(2) today while connecting it to something I read on HN 2 years ago...(3). While it isn't startup news, it does directly show and relate to EFF that the iPhone can't be a trusted platform.
It seems that you directly removed the ability to add comments as well as see articles that are related to any N S A information. Why? Are you trying to control HN and dictate the direction?
I wish there was a more active discussion on the NSA being able to tap into any phone to access users data. That HuffingtonPost link also linked to a story with a bit more detail[1].
>"The U.S. National Security Agency is able to crack protective measures on iPhones, BlackBerry and Android devices, giving it access to users' data on all major smartphones....in which the agencies describe setting up dedicated teams for each type of phone as part of their effort to gather intelligence on potential threats such as terrorists."
This is news to me, I assume they could pull any data from an iPhone/Android/Blackberry, maybe even activate the camera if "need" be.
So why didn't you post this information in the relevant FSF thread yesterday? There was an entire thread of commenters defending Apple to the bitter end.
You should expect to see this more often than not. Cities in Florida are going through the same things, but just haven't defaulted yet. Expect it. Its going to be the norm.
most of this is due to the archaic pension system.
think about the federalist papers for a second. Someone needed to wrote them to convince a nation about our beloved constitution. Since all eyes are on Snowden, he has the best ability to sway many minds about what he believes and what I believe to be right.
Anyone should be able to interpret the constitution as no person or group of people are infallible. It's obvious that SCOTUS opinions change over time, due to composition and prevailing attitudes.
So it's okay to pick and choose which texts to follow from our Constitution? The Constitution doesn't give Snowden the power to interpret it. It does however give that duty to our federal courts. Should we just ignore that part in our Constitution?
The only reason courts interpret the Constitution is because somebody brings forth a constitutional challenge. Often that discussion results from somebody breaking a law.
The point is if Congress passes an unjust law, a legitimate recourse is to force the issue by breaking it intentionally and asking a judge to decide.
Where does the Constitution give sole authority for interpreting it to the Supreme Court? In fact, it does not even give that authority to the Supreme Court. Judicial review was not established directly in the COnstitution.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
, --
And here's the important part, pay attention:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it
I'm rereading the Federalist Papers right now, as it happens. I can't help thinking that most of HN would dismiss Hamilton and Madison as 'statist thugs' if I were to start quoting or paraphrasing the views of those gentlemen on topics like national security.
Hamilton argued at the constitutional convention for an elected monarchy. He admired Caesar above all others, and throughout his life held a profound disdain of the lower class. - “the people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government.”
Read his Caesar letters, or his constitutional convention speech, or other writings, as these views aren't really apparent in the Federalist papers.
Madison is interesting, but he didn't hold to a single consistent political philosophy through his life.
> Shouldn't the interpretation of our Constitution be left to the Supreme Court?
No.
> I mean, the Constitution explicitly grants the Court those powers.
The Constitution defines the judicial power of the United States to include deciding certain classes of legal controversies, including those arising under the Constitution, and provides that the Supreme Court is the organ which executes that role in both an explicitly defined set of cases, and in certain other cases as Congress directs. But that is pretty far from explicitly granting the Supreme Court the sole and exclusive power to interpret the Constitution.
Interpreting the Constitution is no less essential to the Supreme Court's role of deciding certain legal controversies than it is to, e.g., the President's role of seeing that the laws -- including the Constitution -- are faithfully executed, or the Congress's role in carrying out the powers and responsibilities it has defined in the Constitution, or the public's role in evaluating the performance of all three branches and electing members to the two political branches.
The Supreme Court (or the judiciary, or even "government officials" more generally) isn't a special priestly caste to whom the contemplation of certain mysteries is restricted. That would be contrary to the entire concept of government of, by, and for the people.
That's not what is says. Particularly, that period you put in isn't where the sentence ends, the full sentence is:
"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Further, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is defined in Art. III, Sec. 2: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Incorrect. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is "confined within such limits as Congress sees fit to describe." The Francis Wright, 105 U.S. 381 (1881), at 386.
For legal purposes, sure, but if the people disagree with the court's decision there are ways to change things. We could amend the constitution, we could throw it out and write a new one, we could change the makeup of the court, etc. Legally the ultimate authority on the interpretation of the constitution rests with the Supreme Court, but the citizens of this nation are free to express what they want out of the constitution.
We are allowed to disagree with the court, we are allowed to voice our disapproval, and we are allowed to try to rally others to our cause. The Supreme Court is not some kind of heavenly authority, they are just as capable as making the wrong decision as any other branch of government.
Yes, you're free to express what you want out of the Constitution but you're not free to break laws as interpreted by our federal courts. Unless the Constitution is amended, shouldn't we be following the rule of law and let the Court interpret the Constitution?
The problem with that approach is that it allows unjust laws to persist indefinitely. Every so often someone needs to stand up and refuse to play by the rules to ensure that unjust laws are repealed.
Look at the situation Snowden faced. You have a system that widely violates basic privacy rights, based on a secret interpretation of the law, approved by a secret court that only hears the executive branch's arguments and which almost never refuses to grant a warrant (i.e. it is a rubber stamp), with oversight by people who are chosen by the executive branch and who work in secret. These programs, conducted in secret, are widely approved of by the government and widely disapproved of by the general public. Had Snowden accepted the rules and the law, these programs would remain secret and would have continued unopposed indefinitely.
The rule of law does not work when laws are kept secret from everyone. Healthy societies need everyone to follow the law, yes, but they also need for people who recognize failures of the system to stand up despite laws that forbid them from doing so.
FTA: All three pollsters asked their respondents how closely they had followed the NSA issue, and all three found just over a quarter of Americans following the issue “very closely,” while they found from about a third to half not paying close attention at all.
So, how could they report 90% or more of the public with a meaningful opinion about the NSA tracking program? The answer: They all used a “forced-choice” question format, which pressures respondents to make an on-the-spot decision, regardless of how committed they might be to that view. Thus, many people with no real views on the matter had to come up with one, and were thus highly influenced by the priming they had undergone during the interview itself.
You're free to do what you want as long as you're willing to accept the consequences. You're free to rob a bank if you think it's worth the potential jail time and harm to other people.
It's exactly the point though. You are free to break laws, or at least you are free to try. You are not nearly so free to break laws once you are in prison.
I think what you're saying is that you cannot expect to break laws without there being consequences. Of course we agree about that. The point of civil disobedience is that you believe so strongly you are willing to pay the price.
Perhaps you believe it is morally wrong to break laws as a means of getting the courts to interpret the Constitution?
Which is only convention, not by law, and in any case, just an arbitrary number.
FDR threatened to pack the court with lackeys if they didn't vote in favor of his programs.
Which raises the obvious question of, since that event, has the Supreme Court really even served as a check on executive power?
I suppose, at least, FDR would have had to answer to public opinion if he had actually carried out that threat. Unlike, say, if the secret FISA court were so threatened.
> Which is only convention, not by law, and in any case, just an arbitrary number
No, its actually set by law, not convention.
> FDR threatened to pack the court with lackeys if they didn't vote in favor of his programs.
FDR proposed legislation to Congress which would have expanded the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. [1] It was not a threat of unilateral action. The President can't appoint people to the Court without an open seat, created by Congress, to appoint them to.
> I suppose, at least, FDR would have had to answer to public opinion if he had actually carried out that threat. Unlike, say, if the secret FISA court were so threatened.
There are two different courts created under FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review), and the members of both are selected by the Chief Justice of the United States from among current members of the federal judiciary.
The Supreme Court is just another political body. If you have any doubt about this just look at the nomination hearings, as well as the huge number of 5-4 rulings. If the law were clear and it wasn't political, most of the rulings would be heavily slanted one way or another as it would be clear to the justices and there would be very little disagreement.
In short I agree: the Supreme Court is NOT The Voice of God.
