Snowden's Email Provider Vanishes, Vows To Fight For Constitution

[Zeitgeist1983]

So how is that war against Eurasia Eastasia Eurasia going?

OT: This is a bad sign is simply offering privacy is now considered a act against the people of the USA. Next up you will be a terrorist for having curtains covering your windows to stop the NSA having a peek. Land of the free, home of the brave and all that.

afraid to say, but you really don't have much of a case for privacy on the internet considering almost none of the equipment involved in the process are in your house. If they were pulling data directly from your computer that would be one thing, but it's not your equipment they're pulling from.

So in your opinion private contracts are (aka privacy policies) can be invalidated at the whim of the government?

Contractual law is trumped by criminal law.

The problem is the government has essentially declared privacy illegal. Have you committed any crimes? Nope? Too bad, we are hoovering up all your data anyways.

If you had the equipment at your house then the same laws should apply regarding the collection of data.

And it´s all the same way anywhere in the developed world. I live in germany and the conservative parties try everything to limit freedom of speach in the internet. Even the left wing parties managed to dump the social standards some years ago. And the corporations seem to benefit from all the mischiefs.

I don´t think it is really about the politics (Did I use the right term? I´m german, so please excuse some flaws in my language.). I think those who own the money own the governments. And all the governments have debts at banks (why is that so, since theoretically governments can create money on their own?). And some things are very good in creating debts: Wars and cleaning up afterwards.

I don´t know about you guys, but I´m freaked out of a lot of stuff in the recent past. Especially after researching research some things. And I am really concerned writing this here (Not because it´s the escapist, but because it´s the internet). And that is not good.

I really love the internets culture and if your country ever starts a war with my country, know that I hate everything about it. The war, not that it is my or your or anybodies contry. It is not about countries anymore. Because we all share a common culture through the internet.

 

[Colt47]

Why is America called "Land of the Free"? It seems an awful place, shootings right left and center, corruption, greed and stupidity. Honestly, maybe the people should rise up against the government and form one that acts humanly.

Get Em Up Against The Wall

Great. Lavabit was my email provider. I always thought it would be the right wingers that would turn the US into a fascist dictatorship. Silly old me eh?

If I had my way I'd have all of them shot.

Incidentally I saw The Wall in Melbourne

Honestly, I think the United States is held together by glue and paper at the moment. It's hard for anyone to decide on anything anymore with the slow extinction of moderate political positions, stratification of wealth, and a society that is slowly becoming so enveloped by consumerism that we are losing the basic skill of proper long term investment.

We can't even get our government to increase the minimum wage...

 

[Evil Smurf]

Why is America called "Land of the Free"? It seems an awful place, shootings right left and center, corruption, greed and stupidity. Honestly, maybe the people should rise up against the government and form one that acts humanly.

Get Em Up Against The Wall

Great. Lavabit was my email provider. I always thought it would be the right wingers that would turn the US into a fascist dictatorship. Silly old me eh?

If I had my way I'd have all of them shot.

Incidentally I saw The Wall in Melbourne

Honestly, I think the United States is held together by glue and paper at the moment. It's hard for anyone to decide on anything anymore with the slow extinction of moderate political positions, stratification of wealth, and a society that is slowly becoming so enveloped by consumerism that we are losing the basic skill of proper long term investment.

We can't even get our government to increase the minimum wage...

It is pretty awful, move to Australia. Also I noticed you think Obama is left wing. Nope, moderate right wing.

 

[TheSYLOH]

As far as I am aware, a judge won't just sign a warrant.

They have to present evidence to the judge, so that the judge feels that a warrant is justified, otherwise it isn't granted.

But the judge will never have to justify his decision to any higher-ups? Or an independent body?

Yes to the higher ups, probably to a some watchdog group

It's called a "Motion to Suppress"

Here's a link the New Jersey Judicary
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/rules/r7-5.htm

"A motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrant and motions to suppress evidence seized without a warrant, but in matters beyond the trial jurisdiction of the municipal court, shall be made and heard in the Superior Court."

 

[Greg White]

You do know the constitution doesn't give you the 'right to privacy,' right?

The closest thing it has is the right against unreasonable searches and seizures and the right against soldiers being quartered in your home, and something being for the sake of national security goes a long way towards being considered reasonable.

The fourth amendment gives private entities the right to security of person and papers, if data isn't the modern equivalent to papers I don't know what is. The constitution applies to to all persons, private companies included[1]. You are more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist[2]. Do we see a blind fevered push towards overhauling police procedures?

Further more, "national security" is a vague blanket term nowadays for any sort act that someone in a high enough government position of power doesn't like. The FISA court has ruled NSA surveillance ?unreasonable under the fourth amendment"[3], yet the the judicial branch is going along like nothing happened. No policy review/revision, just business as usual.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
[2] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-people-stupid.html
[3] http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/surveillance-spirit-law/

The constitution also says than none of your rights are absolute. Freedom of speech is not absolute, same with your rights of life, liberty, and property.

 

[Hagi]

This is no grey area/line in this case. There is enough evidence to bring Snowden to trial for blatently commited a felony. This time the Government has proper warrants and evidence to back it up, and the company still refuses to comply with the Government.

Except by all accounts they aren't just after Snowden's data. They're after all the data that company has.

According to CNN [http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/09/tech/web/snowden-email-lavabit] and various other :

Court records show that, in June, Lavabit complied with a routine search warrant targeting a child pornography suspect in a federal case in Maryland. That suggests that Levison isn't a privacy absolutist. Whatever compelled him to shut down now must have been exceptional.

Add to that that Levison isn't even allowed to talk about what exactly is going on and yeah, you're right, there's no grey area/line. This is way past that line. This shits all over any semblance of privacy.

 

[flarty]

A government has every right to Subpoena the data with a proper warrant. Problem with these companies is they want keep the government out because the criminals make them a lot of money.

The problem is they can do it without a warrant.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls?INTCMP=SRCH

The article states Snowden is seeking asylum in Russia, he has already been granted temporary asylum, and is most likely already in Venezuela.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

This is just a horrible clusterfuck, imo. There are, of course, a lot of security issues that Snowden compromised by basically saying "Hey everyone! America is spying on all of your crap!" but the NSA's and just the federal government's response is looking less like a political coverup and more like a goddamn Monty Python sketch.

But tbh, I've just heard a lot of horror stories about the government even before this. At this point, I really don't care who wins out between the NSA's suppression of privacy and Snowden's attempt to spread the word about the former's actions; I just want this all to blow over before we make both sides make a huge embarrassment of themselves.

Though, tbh, I'm still leaning toward Snowden, because despite the controversy that he's raised with basically spoiling national secrets, I do applaud whistleblowers that point out questionable acts that definitely might be against the Constitution.

 

[KazeAizen]

You know I come to these sites to get away from stuff like this. Thanks a fucking lot for bringing me back to where people are at each other's throats because it always happens in politics. See this is what is going to happen. Me being a supporter of his I'm going to say Obama is doing an alright job. Not the best but certainly not the worst. After which I will get spammed with comments saying I'm an idiot and this guy has done nothing right and that I need to wise up and side with the rest of them on trying to bring down "The American Regime" and that the real villains are the Bilderburg Group.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

How many other secure webmail sites is the government going to attempt to shut down? They're simply using the excuse of "national security" to censor as many critical voices as possible. The US is nothing but an authoritarian democracy these days, and it's getting more blatantly fascist as time goes on. I'm getting pretty tired of being an American in this day and age.

You know I come to these sites to get away from stuff like this. Thanks a fucking lot for bringing me back to where people are at each other's throats because it always happens in politics. See this is what is going to happen. Me being a supporter of his I'm going to say Obama is doing an alright job. Not the best but certainly not the worst. After which I will get spammed with comments saying I'm an idiot and this guy has done nothing right and that I need to wise up and side with the rest of them on trying to bring down "The American Regime" and that the real villains are the Bilderburg Group.

You don't have to read these types of threads, you know. You don't have to comment on them either. Anyway, I think you'll find that most of the community here at the Escapist are pretty tolerant of other people's political beliefs (at least compared to other sites), so you don't need to be too concerned.

 

[SexyGarfield]

The fourth amendment gives private entities the right to security of person and papers, if data isn't the modern equivalent to papers I don't know what is. The constitution applies to to all persons, private companies included[1]. You are more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist[2]. Do we see a blind fevered push towards overhauling police procedures?

Further more, "national security" is a vague blanket term nowadays for any sort act that someone in a high enough government position of power doesn't like. The FISA court has ruled NSA surveillance ?unreasonable under the fourth amendment"[3], yet the the judicial branch is going along like nothing happened. No policy review/revision, just business as usual.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
[2] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-people-stupid.html
[3] http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/surveillance-spirit-law/

The constitution also says than none of your rights are absolute. Freedom of speech is not absolute, same with your rights of life, liberty, and property.[citation needed]

I think you mean various members of government have said that at times through either judicial ruling or legislative passing of conflicting laws. Find me some constitutional text that says that and I will eat my hat. Life liberty and pursuit of happiness are unalienable according to the declaration of independence (not the constitution), property never made the cut much to John Locke's contention. I'll bring it back to my original question though, do you really want to live in a state where your rights and law turn to vapor at the whim of (not even elected) government officials?

 

[NeedsaBetterName22]

We can't even get our government to increase the minimum wage...

I'd add that part of the problem is people thinking an increase in the minimum wage will actually work and do anything...except automate more low-paying jobs and increase the cost of living for low income workers. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJR0DYs70f8] Economics is definitely not a strong suit of this administration, or the last. Or most people for that matter.

The constitution also says than none of your rights are absolute. Freedom of speech is not absolute, same with your rights of life, liberty, and property.

Oh man, are you serious? Ok, actual philosophy of the Founding Fathers time: this stuff is mostly from the Federalist Papers and other works discussing the Constitution and early American political culture. Whether they were Christian or deitist (it varied from person to person) the Founding Fathers believed in a concept called natural law. Natural law is the foundation of the Western Enlightenment, and is the belief that as an individual human being you have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away from you by a state, religion, or any entity really.

This cultural concept is a part of the Constitution, this is why the Bill of Rights doesn't actually grant rights, it simply grants the government LIMITED powers over citizens depending on very specific circumstances.

Freedom of Speech is used in this context: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That is all the things Congress CANNOT do. It's not granting you the right, it's identifying that you already had that right in the first place due to natural law.

So don't try to pull the Constitution in to justifying whatever you want if you know nothing about it. The main restrictions in U.S. speech come from the infamous 'fire in a movie theatre' argument in the Supreme Court in 1919. And that ruling is bullshit, because you know what the argument was against? Someone who was voicing their opinion about the First World War draft. So don't pretend that you know anything about the U.S. legal structure.

 

[Colt47]

We can't even get our government to increase the minimum wage...

I'd add that part of the problem is people thinking an increase in the minimum wage will actually work and do anything...except automate more low-paying jobs and increase the cost of living for low income workers. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJR0DYs70f8] Economics is definitely not a strong suit of this administration, or the last. Or most people for that matter.

I didn't actually mean it in the way you think. We could have increased the minimum wage by something like 0.25 and that would have been enough to at least count as a compromise to quiet down the advocates, but instead we got people refusing to do anything at all and just letting people continuously blow into bigger and bigger microphones, which in turn causes more and more emotional snowballing. The point is that even though I'm not for a weaker US dollar, unless someone is willing to give a little something to the other side, there is no chance that they will allow anything from your own side in return to go through. It turns into a giant deadlock.

 

[NeedsaBetterName22]

We can't even get our government to increase the minimum wage...

I'd add that part of the problem is people thinking an increase in the minimum wage will actually work and do anything...except automate more low-paying jobs and increase the cost of living for low income workers. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJR0DYs70f8] Economics is definitely not a strong suit of this administration, or the last. Or most people for that matter.

I didn't actually mean it in the way you think. We could have increased the minimum wage by something like 0.25 and that would have been enough to at least count as a compromise to quiet down the advocates, but instead we got people refusing to do anything at all and just letting people continuously blow into bigger and bigger microphones, which in turn causes more and more emotional snowballing.

Ah, fair enough, I get you. Emotional debate has definitely dominated the minimum wage discussion recently, a minor increase probably wouldn't have disastrous economic effects.

The problem is that lower and middle class Americans don't have access to enough purchasing power anymore. And the only real way to solve that would be a stronger dollar backed by more market certainty, which is basically counter-intuitive to everything going on in U.S. economics.

 

[Fox12]

In Soviet Russia, phone listens to you!

Oh wait, that's America.

 

[prowll]

it doesn't matter folks soon the the illuminati will unleash their plan for the eradication of 80% of the human race with their puppet obama at the helm and their frontier nation the united states of satan it will all be over soon they've prepared the coffins and armed the missiles and Snowden is nothing but a minor hitch the true secrets they cover up are the secrets that will lead us into the new post apocalyptic age i hope you guys like shitty water and cans of dog food and beans in tomato sauce and defending yourselves against the new world order's planned placement of cannibalistic predators load your shotguns we're in for a wild ride this is the end

hail satan

You, sir, make me a little nervous.

 

[chadachada123]

If Obama keeps going like he is, he's going to leave office as hated as Bush. It will be very interesting to see how the political world will look once the war for the White House starts again in 2015.

I have a feeling you are going to see a substantially revamped and far more moderate Republican party taking power and trying to repair the US's relationships with the international community while the Democrats will move into a more extreme state a la one like the Reps were touting during the last two elections.

conservatives revamped? is this actually happening? last i heard, the few remaining moderates were losing their seats and the extremists, if not already the majority of the party, were substantial enough that no real reform would have been possible since they'd spend the entire time fighting with each other instead of actually dealing with the situation

as much as i am put off by past conservative actions, i'm willing to support anybody who doesn't constantly and flagrantly pick the wrong side of human rights issues that we should have already dealt with regarding legislation

Considering the general public is slowly but steadily moving towards support of classical conservatives like Rand Paul and (my own representative) Kerry Bentivolio, if not already full-blown constitutionalists like Ron Paul and Congressman Justin Amash (at least with regards to civil liberties), and very much against the neo-conservatives that are, themselves, starting to align with the President on issues like the spying of citizens...

I think that the GOP is going to go through some very strange changes in the upcoming years.

Yes, the GOP leaders, and most GOP congressmen, are still just as batshit insane as ever, but the portion that wants to lower government intrusions of liberties (and spending) is steadily growing. There is a growing schism between statists/neo-conservatives and libertarians/conservatives.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Representatives are generally against these government intrusions, too, barring a few that continue to support the President. The Democrat senators are just as bad as the Republican senators (sans Paul), though.

Ideally, the Democratic party will go through the same changes in the coming years (between statists like the President and actual liberals), with the eventual extinction of the statist assholes once they finally die off, leaving only discussions between fiscal matters, and not issues involving civil liberties or unprovoked foreign invasions or other things that blatantly violate the Constitution.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

So is everyone wanting to send confidential information just going to have to revert to carrier pigeons or what?

 

[SexyGarfield]

I didn't actually mean it in the way you think. We could have increased the minimum wage by something like 0.25 and that would have been enough to at least count as a compromise to quiet down the advocates, but instead we got people refusing to do anything at all and just letting people continuously blow into bigger and bigger microphones, which in turn causes more and more emotional snowballing.

Ah, fair enough, I get you. Emotional debate has definitely dominated the minimum wage discussion recently, a minor increase probably wouldn't have disastrous economic effects.

The problem is that lower and middle class Americans don't have access to enough purchasing power anymore. And the only real way to solve that would be a stronger dollar backed by more market certainty, which is basically counter-intuitive to everything going on in U.S. economics.

A stronger dollar doesn't solve the problem of consolidation of wealth. If you look at each dollar as a fraction of the USA's wealth then increasing the value of each individual dollar's does nothing for class disparity in our country.

So is everyone wanting to send confidential information just going to have to revert to carrier pigeons or what?

Look into PGP if you want to make sure only the intended recipient (and anyone that person shares their key/password with) can see your messages.