US government says online storage isn't protected by the Fourth Amendment

[Tataffe]

I want to go back to Germany

 

I'm afraid the situation here is hardly better, since US spying is a thing in Germany, too.

[ACatWithThumbs]

This country is so fucked...

The hole world is fucked...

Now I know why people signed up for the one way trip to mars lol

[Misanthrope]

So what? If you are a radical or someone supporting an extremist viewpoint, you have no place in this society.

 

Things like slavery, racism, women oppression, etc. were at one point or another extremist viewpoints. Even today without massive violent demonstrations concepts like animals rights and LGBT acceptance are rapidly eroding public consciousness and gaining massive support. The viewpoints of a society change with time and your position is akin to saying that even if proven wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence opposing your views, your political positions and ethics should be imposed on everyone.

 

That's just not a position any free society can support which is why America calls itself even while it's slowly eroding away personal freedom from it's citizens. 

 

The era of McCarthyism is long over. Witch hunts are being exposed (case in point with the IRS scandal).

By persecuted citizens sitting on perpetual exile like Edward Snowden? By Soldiers that have to sacrifice their personal freedom in order to reveal the atrocities they are commanded to commit like Chelsea Manning? Yeah your appeals to the rule of law are a bit pointless when the people exposing this crimes are the ones being persecuted and the crimes they revealed remain not only unprosecuted but perpetuated like the foreign occupation or the continued illegal spying on citizens which without an ounce of cynicism you choose to ignore here.

[nicehat]

 

Things like slavery, racism, women oppression, etc. were at one point or another extremist viewpoints. Even today without massive violent demonstrations concepts like animals rights and LGBT acceptance are rapidly eroding public consciousness and gaining massive support. The viewpoints of a society change with time and your position is akin to saying that even if proven wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence opposing your views, your political positions and ethics should be imposed on everyone.

 

That's just not a position any free society can support which is why America calls itself even while it's slowly eroding away personal freedom from it's citizens. 

 

By persecuted citizens sitting on perpetual exile like Edward Snowden? By Soldiers that have to sacrifice their personal freedom in order to reveal the atrocities they are commanded to commit like Chelsea Manning? Yeah your appeals to the rule of law are a bit pointless when the people exposing this crimes are the ones being persecuted and the crimes they revealed remain not only unprosecuted but perpetuated like the foreign occupation or the continued illegal spying on citizens which without an ounce of cynicism you choose to ignore here.

 

First let me just say that extremism and radicalization is not tolerated by anyone. Those nations that abolished slavery and promoted equality in a time that the US did not, proves that those seeking to end prejudice against fellow human beings were not radicals or extremists in their endeavors. The US was slow to react to changing times, and react it did. A civil war was fought, proving that there was a push back against racism and intolerance. It was a blow to extremism. 

 

Women being marginalized, and seeking equality was not extremist. The whole reason that change occurred was because it was a sane idea. It took time but change occurred. 

 

We are now in a time when major social issues are in place to theoretically give everyone a fair shake in life. Things need to be ironed out, but the blueprint is there. There are no more revolutionary issues that are seen as extremist or radical. All the significant paradigm changing social issues have been fixed in theory. Name me one issue that you see on the same level of injustice as racism or gender equality or gay rights. 

 

Edward Snowden is a military matter. Even if he was a contractor for the military, he obviously isnt going to be celebrated as a hero by the US govt. Maybe the people, but not the government. Regardless of your viewpoint on whether he was right or wrong, he obv did something wrong to do what he thought was right...which requires consequences based on our established law. There are no extremists here, not Snowden, not the people that support him, or demonize him. 

 

By the way, the Patriot Act was voted on by Congress, and signed into law by G.W in 2001. We allowed the government to spy on us in the name of perceived security. We did this to ourselves. Snowden brought the extent of surveillance of US citizens to the public stage. Is he a hero for doing that?

[LAwLz]

So what? If you are a radical or someone supporting an extremist viewpoint, you have no place in this society.

Ehhh... Yes they do? They will always have a place.

Being against slavery was once seen as an "extremist viewpoint". Being pro-gay is still seen as an extremist viewpoint in many countries, and it is punishable by prison or even death in some places. My opinion that you should distinguish between anime characters and real people in a certain type of images (you know which kind) would label me as a criminal in some countries (luckily not in Sweden).

If you want a true democracy then you need to allow "extremist" opinions as well, even if you don't personally agree with them.

 

 

First let me just say that extremism and radicalization is not tolerated by anyone. Those nations that abolished slavery and promoted equality in a time that the US did not, proves that those seeking to end prejudice against fellow human beings were not radicals or extremists in their endeavors. The US was slow to react to changing times, and react it did. A civil war was fought, proving that there was a push back against racism and intolerance. It was a blow to extremism.

What is considered an "extremist" or not is subjective. You only think that being against slavery was not an extremist opinion because you agree with it. If you were on the other side of the debate you would have thought it was.

[Real_PhillBert]

Looks like a fairly poorly written article. 

 

Overseas records must be disclosed domestically when a valid subpoena, order, or warrant compels their production.

 

because of this statement from the Stored Communications Act, it looks to me like it has absolutely nothing to do with the forth amendment. The US government can subpoena my financial records if they show probably cause for a crime and get a Judge to sign off on it. Exactly the same as a search warrant for your house, or car. The fourth amendment only applies if they can get the information without a valid subpoena, order, or warrant. This does not appear to be the case.

 

If this wasn't true I could keep my illegal records in Canada (for example) and could not be charged even though they belong to an american citizen (me). This is simply a reiteration of what is already in the law, if you want to operate on american soil, you must abide by american law. Nothing new or ground breaking. Purely a click bait title that gets people worked up.

[Yummychickenblue]

Hey America, why are your governments so shit?

We are the special kid in the classroom!

[nicehat]

Ehhh... Yes they do? They will always have a place.

Being against slavery was once seen as an "extremist viewpoint". Being pro-gay is still seen as an extremist viewpoint in many countries, and it is punishable by prison or even death in some countries. My opinion that you should distinguish between anime characters and real people in a certain type of images (you know which kind) would label me as a criminal in some countries (luckily not in Sweden).

If you want a true democracy then you need to allow "extremist" opinions as well, even if you don't personally agree with them.

 

Im only talking about the US here. The US never claimed to be a pure democracy. It is a representative democracy. Which means that while the fringe exists, they wont hold sway on policy. Law requires that they be protected, but they dont have to be tolerated. Just like I said before, I challenge you (assuming you are not an extremist yourself) to name one social injustice that is held on a higher moral ground by extremists that should be held by the masses but is not? 

[Dietrichw]

I'm afraid the situation here is hardly better, since US spying is a thing in Germany, too.

hey you are from Stuttgart I was an exchange student near there last year in the Stammheim area. 

[Darkman]

Hey America, why are your governments so shit?

They want money, lots of money...

[Fetzie]

I'm afraid the situation here is hardly better, since US spying is a thing in Germany, too.

 

At least the government pretends to give a shit about our privacy, unlike the UK and the US who don't even pretend it.

[BLKThumb]

Home cloud ftw I guess

[LAwLz]

Im only talking about the US here. The US never claimed to be a pure democracy. It is a representative democracy. Which means that while the fringe exists, they wont hold sway on policy. Law requires that they be protected, but they dont have to be tolerated. Just like I said before, I challenge you (assuming you are not an extremist yourself) to name one social injustice that is held on a higher moral ground by extremists that should be held by the masses but is not? 

Well damn... The only thing I can think of right now is the pedophilia hysteria.

For example you as an 18 year old can be sentenced for having an image of your 17 year old girlfriend that she herself sent you. That would be classified as child pornography and the sentence can be really harsh. Hell, we got ~10 year old kids that are registered sex offenders because of the hysteria.

Another example of this, which applies to me personally, is like I said before, the law does not separate between fictional and real children in some parts of the world. So looking at a clearly unrealistic drawing is still considered illegal. To me, that makes as much sense as classifying FPS gamers are "mass murderers" because they kill fictional humans. Both of them are thought crimes that doesn't involve any human being being harmed.

 

It doesn't seem like you got my point though. What is classified as an "extremist" opinion varies from person to person. You could argue that you will never be able to find an extremist opinion that is on a higher moral ground that the "non-extremist" opinion.

Morals varies from person to person. I don't think of my views as extremist views and I doubt anyone who agrees with me will think of them as extreme either. However, the people who disagree with me will think they are extreme.

I can't think of a good way to explain it more clearly. Maybe @Misanthrope can explain it better? He seemed to be on the same track as me in an earlier post.

My point is that you usually won't see your the opinions you agree with as extreme. Other people might do though.

 

 

 

Anyway, my point is that you we need privacy. Without privacy and the right to think/say what we want it might still have been illegal to be gay, slavery would have been ethically right and accepted, women would be seen as second class citizen etc etc.

Privacy is extremely important and should not be taken lightly. That's why it is in the constitution of many countries including the US and Sweden.

[Snickerzz]

oh noes my porns! D:

[nicehat]

Well damn... The only thing I can think of right now is the pedophilia hysteria.

For example you as an 18 year old can be sentenced for having an image of your 17 year old girlfriend that she herself sent you. That would be classified as child pornography and the sentence can be really harsh. Hell, we got ~10 year old kids that are registered sex offenders because of the hysteria.

Another example of this, which applies to me personally, is like I said before, the law does not separate between fictional and real children in some parts of the world. So looking at a clearly unrealistic drawing is still considered illegal. To me, that makes as much sense as classifying FPS gamers are "mass murderers" because they kill fictional humans. Both of them are thought crimes that doesn't involve any human being being harmed.

 

It doesn't seem like you got my point though. What is classified as an "extremist" opinion varies from person to person. You could argue that you will never be able to find an extremist opinion that is on a higher moral ground that the "non-extremist" opinion.

Morals varies from person to person. I don't think of my views as extremist views and I doubt anyone who agrees with me will think of them as extreme either. However, the people who disagree with me will think they are extreme.

I can't think of a good way to explain it more clearly. Maybe @Misanthrope can explain it better? He seemed to be on the same track as me in an earlier post.

My point is that you usually won't see your the opinions you agree with as extreme. Other people might do though.

 

 

 

Anyway, my point is that you we need privacy. Without privacy and the right to think/say what we want it might still have been illegal to be gay, slavery would have been ethically right and accepted, women would be seen as second class citizen etc etc.

Privacy is extremely important and should not be taken lightly. That's why it is in the constitution of many countries including the US and Sweden.

 

 

I get what you are trying to say. The way society works is based on majority rule. If 50.1% of society agrees that something is right or wrong, and bases laws around this, then these are laws that are now based around consensus of morality. You may have different morals, but statistically, you will be within 2 to maybe 3 at most standard deviations from what society has agreed on. In short, you can agree with more things that you dont agree upon with the consensus. Based on the differences you do have, does not make you an extremist or a fringe individual. If you warp the definition to that end, then everyone is an extremist which obviously is not the case. Extremists are by definition those individuals that hold beliefs (and possibly act on them) that reside in the 5th percentile...The outliars that have almost radically different views on life or government if you will. Outliers always get discarded when making policy. Slavery was never accepted by more than 50% of this country. Morality based on the Bill of Rights, and Constitution never changed and the balance of opinion always tipped to correct itself (through civil war) in the right direction up till the 60's and even during this decade with gay rights. 

 

My thing is that morals today by a imagined measurement metric are far more evolved and progressive than they were 100 years ago. Those morals 100 years ago were more evolved than those of that generation's predecessors. We are, in the USA and in western society, at a moral equivalent where everyone is given a fair shake in life with no exceptions (in theory). The fact that laws are in place to protect minors, is a huge evolution over the ones that turned a blind eye to kids being used to mine and be used as hard labor. There are no major advances in social justice left to be made. Everyone in the US is on a level playing field in the eyes of the law (whether in practice this is true is another thing). 

 

What everyone conveniently forgets is that the 2001 Patriot Act was made into law by the people. We (the majority or society) accepted infringements into our privacy. This is all legal because we allowed the gov't to do so. This was done to strengthen society's contract with the government  to keep us safe...not on moral grounds.

[Misanthrope]

Laws get overturned and opinions change over time. You're hindering valid debate, ironically enough you insists on how progressive modern society is but this would literally be impossible without heavy opposition and yes even civil disobedience and flatout violent revolution and resistance in the extremes.

[LAwLz]

Based on the differences you do have, does not make you an extremist or a fringe individual. If you warp the definition to that end, then everyone is an extremist which obviously is not the case. Extremists are by definition those individuals that hold beliefs (and possibly act on them) that reside in the 5th percentile...The outliars that have almost radically different views on life or government if you will. Outliers always get discarded when making policy. Slavery was never accepted by more than 50% of this country. Morality based on the Bill of Rights, and Constitution never changed and the balance of opinion always tipped to correct itself (through civil war) in the right direction up till the 60's and even during this decade with gay rights.

Well I doubt that many people will agree with me on my views of the issues I brought up previously (at least the anime related one) and yet I think my view makes far more sense and would be morally right. If I lived in for example certain states in the US I would not be able to say things like "I own a bunch of lolicon manga" because that is illegal. Obviously I am biased but I think that is just as unfair as outlawing homosexuals, and I think it is a good example of how our modern society is still far from rational and progressive in certain areas.

What I am trying to say is that it's too subjective to just say "it has always tipped to correct itself" because a lot of people feel that it tipped in the wrong direction. Uganda is a democracy and they have recently started being more harsh on homosexuals. A lot of people in Uganda are probably saying "it always tipped to correct itself" too.

See how subjective it is? The anti-gay people in Uganda are probably calling people pro-homosexual liberties "extremists", and vice versa.

 

It's the same old "if you got nothing to fear you got nothing to hide" argument all over again. Just because you think something is alright doesn't mean everyone else will think so too.

Even though I am doing nothing illegal my view on this one issue could probably get me fired from certain types of jobs. That's why I need privacy and anonymity.

 

 

My thing is that morals today by a imagined measurement metric are far more evolved and progressive than they were 100 years ago. Those morals 100 years ago were more evolved than those of that generation's predecessors. We are, in the USA and in western society, at a moral equivalent where everyone is given a fair shake in life with no exceptions (in theory). The fact that laws are in place to protect minors, is a huge evolution over the ones that turned a blind eye to kids being used to mine and be used as hard labor. There are no major advances in social justice left to be made. Everyone in the US is on a level playing field in the eyes of the law (whether in practice this is true is another thing).

And in 100 years we might (and probably will) have different ethics than what we got today. If those ethics are better or worse will vary from person to person though.

I think you're a bit delusional in thinking that our current ethics are flawless. Chances are people thought the same 100 years ago too.

 

 

What everyone conveniently forgets is that the 2001 Patriot Act was made into law by the people. We (the majority or society) accepted infringements into our privacy. This is all legal because we allowed the gov't to do so. This was done to strengthen society's contract with the government  to keep us safe...not on moral grounds.

Uganda is a democracy as well, so they technically voted that homosexuality should be illegal and punishable by for example imprisonment.

That is bordering on an argumentum ad populum.

I am not trying to argue against democracy but I don't think "well people voted for it" always means the best choice gets picked.

[TopWargamer]

So the stuff in online storage isn't mine? I don't own the stuff in "online storage"?

 

Cool, then I can't be charged with what I have in online storage, because it isn't "mine".

 

You want to play games? Then I'll play your game, and make my own rules.

What makes this even better is that you have a very valid point.

 

Why pay for online storage based in the USA if what's being stored isn't yours? Throw that question at any US lawmaker and they'll just be like "Uuuhhhh, I'll get back to you on that one." And then we'll see the government reverse what they said.

 

Either way, if the US government is trying to become a China copy cat, then they are doing a very good job at it. All they need to do is now is pass SOPA or something similar to it.

[nicehat]

Well I doubt that many people will agree with me on my views of the issues I brought up previously (at least the anime related one) and yet I think my view makes far more sense and would be morally right. If I lived in for example certain states in the US I would not be able to say things like "I own a bunch of lolicon manga" because that is illegal. Obviously I am biased but I think that is just as unfair as outlawing homosexuals, and I think it is a good example of how our modern society is still far from rational and progressive in certain areas.

What I am trying to say is that it's too subjective to just say "it has always tipped to correct itself" because a lot of people feel that it tipped in the wrong direction. Uganda is a democracy and they have recently started being more harsh on homosexuals. A lot of people in Uganda are probably saying "it always tipped to correct itself" too.

See how subjective it is? The anti-gay people in Uganda are probably calling people pro-homosexual liberties "extremists", and vice versa.

 

It's the same old "if you got nothing to fear you got nothing to hide" argument all over again. Just because you think something is alright doesn't mean everyone else will think so too.

Even though I am doing nothing illegal my view on this one issue could probably get me fired from certain types of jobs. That's why I need privacy and anonymity.

 

 

And in 100 years we might (and probably will) have different ethics than what we got today. If those ethics are better or worse will vary from person to person though.

I think you're a bit delusional in thinking that our current ethics are flawless. Chances are people thought the same 100 years ago too.

 

 

Uganda is a democracy as well, so they technically voted that homosexuality should be illegal and punishable by for example imprisonment.

That is bordering on an argumentum ad populum.

I am not trying to argue against democracy but I don't think "well people voted for it" always means the best choice gets picked.

 

Again, as this is about the US, all my comments are based on the US and not Uganda, or any other country. Im not delusional in thinking that our ideals and morals have never changed from off to on like a switch. Im sorry, but your particular issue (which is probably very important to you, not to take away from it) has no place in the same sentence as victories in slavery, suffrage, minor protection laws, healthcare reform, social security etc etc. These have all been championed from documents that cry out for the right to life, equality and liberty for all. Uganda? I have no idea what they are doing. The morals in this country and many in the western hemisphere are fashioned from certain doctrines that call for unalienable rights to all human beings. 

 

Again, I asked you to mention a social injustice that is left on the magnitude of suffrage, slavery, gay rights and minor protection laws that still need to be established in this country. Is our system flawless as you paint me as saying? Well if you want my answer, its no. But its a system thats infinitely better for everyone than it was 100 years ago. You are more than free to come to the US and ask someone on the street about their "subjective" opinion on slavery, suffrage or any of the above mentioned topics and the answer will probably be, at least close to agreeing with the consensus....which happens to be supported by law. Things need to be ironed out, but the skeleton for equality is there... as I said before. 

 

argumentum ad populum. Are you kidding me. Im not saying that at all. Case in point the Patriot Act. It was voted for by the people that we voted in. So, who's to blame? I dont agree with it, some people do. In any case, Im not with the majority on that one. Nor do I agree with everything on there. 

 

 

 

Laws get overturned and opinions change over time. You're hindering valid debate, ironically enough you insists on how progressive modern society is but this would literally be impossible without heavy opposition and yes even civil disobedience and flatout violent revolution and resistance in the extremes.

 

* States that Im hindering valid debate by bringing up irony....then doesnt use the quote button*

 

Good Job

[ericlee30]

I have enough storage space here at the house, that I don't really have anything to worry about.

[Misanthrope]

* States that Im hindering valid debate by bringing up irony....then doesnt use the quote button*

 

Good Job

Not as good of a job as a cope out ad hominem line regarding my lack of forum etiquette.

[Builder]

-snip-

I understand you're passionate about it, but please don't compare manga of underaged girls having sex to the gay rights movement. It will only give the other side more ammunition for their slippery slope arguments.

 

-snip-

If you seriously believe that everyone is already equal in this country by law...

 

Gay marriage is still not legalized on a national level, marijuana is a Schedule I drug simply because more black people use it than white people, corporations can now ignore portions of the law because they are people with religious beliefs, it is illegal for an atheist to become governor in eight states, women can't get abortions in several states...I could go on but I believe the point has been made. There are laws on all levels of government that do not give everyone a fair playing field.

[nicehat]

Gay marriage is still not legalized on a national level, marijuana is a Schedule I drug simply because more black people use it than white people, corporations can now ignore portions of the law because they are people with religious beliefs, it is illegal for an atheist to become governor in eight states, women can't get abortions in several states...I could go on but I believe the point has been made. There are laws on all levels of government that do not give everyone a fair playing field.

 

Sure. All of those cogs are turning in favor of correcting those problems. I can only comment what I understand from your post. Sorry but abortions are legal across all 50 states. States have a right to restrict them based on gestational age. They can range from 20 weeks to viability depending on what state you are in. Dont have a state that meets your criteria? Get to a state that does. The same thing can be said for legalized grass...State legislatures are entertaining the notion of legalizing it. 

 

As for corporations ignoring people of religion, I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to be governor go to a state that allows you to be one. As I said, the skeleton of equality is laid out, it needs to be filled in in some places and ironed out in others. The cogs of change are in motion.

 

Besides, are you comparing having to inconvenience yourself to travel out of state to get the job done to major accomplishments of the social paradigm shifts I mentioned? Are these things you mentioned really on that level?

 

Imagine time traveling back in time and telling Harriet Tubman, Lucretia Mott, or MLK that you're bummed that you gotta take time off work and pay for a flight all the way to Colorado or Washington to get some grass legally. 

[Builder]

-snip-

That got insulting really fast. I don't smoke pot, I don't need abortions, however you assume I do.

 

You can say the cogs of change are turning as many times as you want, however the fact remains that an openly atheist candidate would not be elected president. On top of that, the states in which atheist governors are illegal are very conservative and I don't think that fact will be changing for awhile.

 

It's still not legal on a federal level, you can still get arrested for it very easily.

[nicehat]

That got insulting really fast. I don't smoke pot, I don't need abortions, however you assume I do.

 

If I insulted you, that wasnt my intention. In fact, I wasnt trying to insinuate that you smoke grass. I mentioned that you are incorrect about your information on abortion law, not that you were in the market for one. I was illustrating the importance of our remaining deficiencies (like the ones you pointed out) to those that we have surpassed. 

 

JFK was the first Roman Catholic to get elected. At the time it was heresy. Nixon was a Quaker. Mitt Romney if he was elected is Mormon. Now, we have a black president, and perhaps the first female president in the next election. Bobby Jindal was a Hindu that converted to Christianity, and will probably run. What part about this trend makes you think that we are getting less progressive with respect to religion and accepting people that are not traditional?