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

[mr moose]

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? 

 

fuck, we had an atheist prime minister and she still voted down gay marriage.   Although i know you guys have religious trouble over there I'm sure most of the issues are more a result of human deficiencies*  than cultural ones.

[Builder]

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? 

Because religious people see atheism differently than they see other religions. They see atheists as those that don't have a leader and thus have no morals which are ordinarily provided ostensibly by religion. They'd rather a person who is religious, at least in some way, than someone who isn't.

 

Also, you did try to insinuate I smoked weed, by saying it was lazy of me to compare pot legalization to the civil rights movement.

 

I'm serious, ask almost any Christian. In my experience they consider Satanists to be on average better people than atheists.

[mr moose]

Because religious people see atheism differently than they see other religions. They see atheists as those that don't have a leader and thus have no morals which are ordinarily provided ostensibly by religion. They'd rather a person who is religious, at least in some way, than someone who isn't.

 

 

that's a bit presumptuous,  I know many religious people that don't view morals as a divine bequest, but a human construct. 

[Builder]

that's a bit presumptuous,  I know many religious people that don't view morals as a divine bequest, but a human construct. 

Well that's the way most American Christians are. It's quite different in other countries. Most European Catholics I've met have been among the most reasonable people I know.

[mr moose]

Well that's the way most American Christians are.

 

Must be something in the water.

[LAwLz]

Well that's the way most American Christians are. It's quite different in other countries. Most European Catholics I've met have been among the most reasonable people I know.

That reminds me of the study made by the university of British Columbia that showed that the people they questioned rated atheists about as trustworthy as rapists.

The study was stupid, but it's foolish to say that there is no discrimination towards atheists in some parts of the world (even the civilized one).

 

 

Most European Catholics I've met have been among the most reasonable people I know.

Must... Resist... Bad joke...

 

 

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.

Well you'll always give people ammunition for logical fallacies no matter what you say. I will compare it to the gay movement though.

About 10% of people are gay, and I wouldn't be surprised if 5%+ are either ephebophiles or lolicons and both of them makes no sense that they are illegal (in some countries) if you ask me. It's not as big of an issue as gay rights, but I think it is an issue that affects many people. It's just that most people hide it so we don't really have any real numbers on it. If we include for example all the kids that are now registered sex offenders because of idiotic laws then the issue becomes even bigger.

Shouldn't equality include everyone, not just the 95% most "normal" people?

 

Another area I think the laws are pantsu-on-head-retarded about is prostitution.

For some reason it seems like laws relating to sex have either stayed still or gotten more restrictive as time goes on.

 

 

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.

My point is that it's moronic to think that our current ethics are flawless and that we don't have to change anything. Chances are the majority of people thought the same thing 100 years ago even though we as of today will say "no they were definition flawed".

Even you nicehat has to resort to "well just move to a place where it is legal!" on a lot of subjects. Isn't "just move to a different part of the country, or a different country" all the proof you need that it's not perfect yet? I will totally agree with you that "the skeleton of equality is laid out", but there are a lot of cracks it in, there are a lot of places which needs to be filled in, and some of the smaller crannies will take a lot of time to fill in because some people are reluctant to do so. It might even take hundreds of years.

 

 

 

I just realized how ridiculously derailed this thread has become. It started with online storage and now it's about religion as well as a bunch of other stuff.

[Builder]

-snip-

I wholeheartedly agree with you saying it's moronic to say our ethics are flawless.

 

Contrarily I don't actually have a problem with lolicon however we have enough people already saying that gay rights would lead to pedophilia here in the states without other movements like that. I think getting off to it is fine as long as you don't bring any of it into the real world and as long as underage girls aren't actually involved in the creation. I think it's a bit creepy but as long as it doesn't actually involve real underage sex then I believe it's ok.

 

And it may seem important to you (I'm not sure what gay rights are like in Sweden) but I don't see the right to watch a certain kind of porno as important as getting to marry a person who may or may not be the opposite gender from you, and we certainly have a lot farther to go at least in this country on that front unlike @nicehat would have you believe. I would also like to point out that even though he seems relatively progressive a lot of conservatives here in the US use the excuse of "everyone's already equal" to avoid actually making everyone equal, if that makes any sense to you.

[SSL]

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.

 

Just curious, can you grasp the burden this places on women seeking abortions, if they have to travel out of state to get one? Are you aware of those states where abortion is "technically" legal, yet there is literally one clinic in the entire state? Abortions aren't cheap, either. The result is that even though abortions aren't illegal in any state, in some they might as well be.

 

Generally, your argument that "majority rules" and that most social justice issues are supported by the majority are red herrings. What matters is who has power, not the number of people that have it.

[Lays]

Err.......... so what? Unless you have illegal things in your online storage account, I don't see the problem.  They're not just going to go in and take all of your things for no reason.

[Misanthrope]

Err.......... so what? 

 

Asked and answered: please go back and read the first 2 pages.

[Real_PhillBert]

Err.......... so what? Unless you have illegal things in your online storage account, I don't see the problem.  They're not just going to go in and take all of your things for no reason.

 

Bingo. It seems that most people here didnt catch this. This only applies to companies that operate in the US, and a warrant or subpoena is still needed to access the information held overseas, exactly the same as information held locally. The 4th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this law. Click bait title appears to have been a success.

[LAwLz]

Contrarily I don't actually have a problem with lolicon however we have enough people already saying that gay rights would lead to pedophilia here in the states without other movements like that. I think getting off to it is fine as long as you don't bring any of it into the real world and as long as underage girls aren't actually involved in the creation. I think it's a bit creepy but as long as it doesn't actually involve real underage sex then I believe it's ok.

Oh God please don't remind me of those people. I am still not sure if they are just trolling or actually believe their own bullshit.

And yeah I don't get why it isn't okay in some countries. Like I said before, to me it makes as much sense as saying killing someone in a game will lead to killing someone in real life. But then again... Some people actually believe that bullshit.

 

 

And it may seem important to you (I'm not sure what gay rights are like in Sweden) but I don't see the right to watch a certain kind of porno as important as getting to marry a person who may or may not be the opposite gender from you, and we certainly have a lot farther to go at least in this country on that front unlike @nicehat would have you believe. I would also like to point out that even though he seems relatively progressive a lot of conservatives here in the US use the excuse of "everyone's already equal" to avoid actually making everyone equal, if that makes any sense to you.

Sweden is really good in terms of gay rights. It's been legal since the 40's and same sex marriage has been legal since 2009 (pretty late if you ask me, but still 7th in the world).

Don't get me wrong, I think gay rights are more important than the other things I mentioned, but I still think they are important. I just used them as an example of how I don't think our ethics are "tipping in the right direction". In fact, I think we are tipping in the wrong direction in some areas (like the ones I mentioned).

[Misanthrope]

Bingo. It seems that most people here didnt catch this. This only applies to companies that operate in the US, and a warrant or subpoena is still needed to access the information held overseas, exactly the same as information held locally. The 4th amendment has absolutely nothing to do with this law. Click bait title appears to have been a success.

 

Again please do not come into a thread just to say +1 without reading the on going discussion, I already explained why this makes the concept of a private network null and void and that's the issue: If I have things on an offline computer, nobody can take my computer and search it's files without probable cause. If I physically ship that computer to another location including another country again, I cannot be compelled to hand over the information without a warrant based on probable cause. But just because the information was transferred via a computer network and not physically transported, now all of the sudden I lose all those rights?

 

That's an unfair abuse that punishes technology, it's just an excuse for people who oppose the rights granted in this law to bypass it based on a gross misunderstanding of how technology works. A virtual private network is first and foremost PRIVATE. It's the equivalent of me connecting 2 of my properties with a private tunnel nobody can access, a tunnel which I own and paid for by the way.

[ThyFeared]

Nothing's protected by the fourth amendment besides privacy of corporations, apparently.

This says it all

[Builder]

Oh God please don't remind me of those people. I am still not sure if they are just trolling or actually believe their own bullshit.

And yeah I don't get why it isn't okay in some countries. Like I said before, to me it makes as much sense as saying killing someone in a game will lead to killing someone in real life. But then again... Some people actually believe that bullshit.

 

 

Sweden is really good in terms of gay rights. It's been legal since the 40's and same sex marriage has been legal since 2009 (pretty late if you ask me, but still 7th in the world).

Don't get me wrong, I think gay rights are more important than the other things I mentioned, but I still think they are important. I just used them as an example of how I don't think our ethics are "tipping in the right direction". In fact, I think we are tipping in the wrong direction in some areas (like the ones I mentioned).

Thankfully my home state of Massachusetts was the first to legalize it in way back in 2004. Ancient times, amirite? Still no marijuana though...that one really befuddles me.

 

Yeah, that guy was a bit wacky to think that the USA is perfect with regards to equal playing fields, you mention that an atheist can't become governor in eight states and he says move to another state and wait until they legalize it, because he's sure they will I'm actually shaking my head.

 

The thing about the "killing people in games" is that a lot of pro gun rights advocates here use it as an excuse to put the blame of all the mass shootings we have on something other than guns. It's actually a serious issue, at least by their standards, even though there is scientific consensus disproving it.

 

A lot of stuff flies in the face of scientific consensus here in the states, we're still arguing over whether or not global warming exists instead of deciding what to do about it, we put marijuana in the same drug class as heroin and yet cocaine is in the class below it, we have been following mainly Austrian economics for the past 14 years, etc.

[Ashley]

why don't we just become China?

Many of our politicians envy China.

[nicehat]

My point is that it's moronic to think that our current ethics are flawless and that we don't have to change anything. Chances are the majority of people thought the same thing 100 years ago even though we as of today will say "no they were definition flawed".

Even you nicehat has to resort to "well just move to a place where it is legal!" on a lot of subjects. Isn't "just move to a different part of the country, or a different country" all the proof you need that it's not perfect yet? I will totally agree with you that "the skeleton of equality is laid out", but there are a lot of cracks it in, there are a lot of places which needs to be filled in, and some of the smaller crannies will take a lot of time to fill in because some people are reluctant to do so. It might even take hundreds of years.

 

So in 100 years, we are going to have another human rights issue akin to civil rights, slavery, minor rights? Those people are going to look back and say "wow, they couldnt have gotten it more wrong"? You dont think that we will build upon our victories and iron out the problems that remain? You think a new foundation will be put down? I know you dont think that. We have it right. It needs to get better. Again...moving to another state for an abortion is not the same as having to leave your country for an abortion. See my reply to SSL below. 

 

@Builder

 

First, get it right. I never said the US is perfect. Go back and read where I wrote that. I have continually said that it is imperfect but at a level where no further major issues are left to conquer akin to the ones we have solved. Any that exist are progressing towards finality

 

The only issue I hear from you is that a Governor cant win in a southern state and be atheist. Honestly, this is a moot and insignificant point compared to what has been done. Question, can an Atheist run for office? Can a Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist run for office? They can? Well I would argue thats infinitely better than the case of yesteryear when that would be unheard of. The same thing was said about a catholic in the whitehouse. It happened. There are barriers to break down, but these backwards mentalities and ingrained issues take a few generations to iron out.

 

And what makes you think that as Moose sort of referred to that an athiest is the answer to any social issues or any/all of your problems? What makes you think that an Atheist would do better than Barrack Obama has done as President? Are you implying that an atheist like Jesse Ventura (former Governor of Minnesota) is more of a champion of social justice than a religious one? Does religion or lack thereof make you a better human being? What does god have to do with some of his accomplishments that have broken down social injustices in our time? 

• Health Care Reform
• Expansion of Medicaid to everyone < 65
• Increasing funding for the Violence against women Act
• Lifting restrictions for Cuban Americans to visit family in Cuba
• etc etc

Or if you are saying that an atheist governor cant exist, It is possible to be an Atheist, and governor. Its been done...Just not everywhere..yet. Just because a candidate says he's christian doesnt mean he is. He could be saying that to get votes. Just like Hardcore Republican anti-gay activist lawmakers that are caught being gay.

 

The point is that we are at a point where we wont go backwards, only forwards. This is the best time in American history to be living.

 

The States have the right to self governance. You cant shove ideas of equality down peoples' throats. There are hundreds of years of preconceived ideas and traditions that need to be considered. You can bet your ass, that the future generations of people are going to be more tolerant of one another than they are today. Skin color, race and religion wont mean half as much as it did in the 1800s. 

 

 

Just curious, can you grasp the burden this places on women seeking abortions, if they have to travel out of state to get one? Are you aware of those states where abortion is "technically" legal, yet there is literally one clinic in the entire state? Abortions aren't cheap, either. The result is that even though abortions aren't illegal in any state, in some they might as well be.

 

Generally, your argument that "majority rules" and that most social justice issues are supported by the majority are red herrings. What matters is who has power, not the number of people that have it.

 

 

 

Yes, I can grasp how hard it must be to have at least 16 weeks after your first missed period to investigate, discuss and organize accommodations and resources (including private insurance, medicaid in some states, charity, or personal funds) to have the procedure done. I also understand that short-term disability comes into effect if you are on extended leave. I also understand that if push comes to shove, there is an alternative - get in the car and drive to a clinic that will take you. This is not a privilege  that can be found in most other countries. 

 

Abortions can run from $200-$2000 (up to viability). Although many states have very few federally funded reproductive health clinics, the same can not be said about private hospitals and their institutions that can provide their services. So your information is wrong. It pertains to federally subsidized, and not private clinics. It is up to the hospital to decide based on state restrictions whether to perform the surgery or not. And if you dont get the answer you want, you have 49 other states.

 

-Yes, I grasp all of that

 

Again, name me a social injustice that remains unresolved on the scale of slavery, suffrage, minor rights, civil rights, social security etc? All these were solved with the rule of majority. It was the majority that gave the government far reaching powers in 2001, and it is the majority that tolerates it. The states that chose to live in another century are not reflections of the majority. 

[MonkeyFace]

Many of our politicians envy China.

[Misanthrope]

So in 100 years, we are going to have another human rights issue akin to civil rights, slavery, minor rights? Those people are going to look back and say "wow, they couldnt have gotten it more wrong"?

If you ask animal activists they will think so yeah. And by the way things are turning out I think that it's a very real possibility to completely outlaw zoos, non-food (or even food) animal products and even most house pets for people without large properties, etc.

[Real_PhillBert]

Again please do not come into a thread just to say +1 without reading the on going discussion, I already explained why this makes the concept of a private network null and void and that's the issue: If I have things on an offline computer, nobody can take my computer and search it's files without probable cause. If I physically ship that computer to another location including another country again, I cannot be compelled to hand over the information without a warrant based on probable cause. But just because the information was transferred via a computer network and not physically transported, now all of the sudden I lose all those rights?

 

That's an unfair abuse that punishes technology, it's just an excuse for people who oppose the rights granted in this law to bypass it based on a gross misunderstanding of how technology works. A virtual private network is first and foremost PRIVATE. It's the equivalent of me connecting 2 of my properties with a private tunnel nobody can access, a tunnel which I own and paid for by the way.

 

First, re-read the thread. I have already been here and explained why you are incorrect.

 

Second, I dont think you are quite understanding what this article is saying. This article is NOT saying that if you store information on a network it is open season for the feds to raid at their will. What this article (and law) do say, is that EXACTLY LIKE if you physically have data in paper form, that can be subpoenaed. 

 

This article has absolutely zero to do with the 4th amendment. The fourth amendment protects american citizens from illegal searches and seizures, this is still the case. The law very plainly says that you must present the information if presented with a valid subpoena or warrant.

[Misanthrope]

First, re-read the thread. I have already been here and explained why you are incorrect.

 

Second, I dont think you are quite understanding what this article is saying. This article is NOT saying that if you store information on a network it is open season for the feds to raid at their will. What this article (and law) do say, is that EXACTLY LIKE if you physically have data in paper form, that can be subpoenaed. 

 

This article has absolutely zero to do with the 4th amendment. The fourth amendment protects american citizens from illegal searches and seizures, this is still the case. The law very plainly says that you must present the information if presented with a valid subpoena or warrant.

Oh ok, I did not realize you were just repeating the same stuff.

In any case, an American search warrant being enforced for Dublin servers, there's no jurisdiction or reason to compel a private party to basically steal data from a customer who has it on another country. If he doesn't wants it to be transferred then a request to the government of the foreign country should be issued.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but a warrant emitted by a secret court that cannot be compelled to disclose their reasons it's still in violation of the constitution and still in contradiction of the amendment in question. But hey what do I know right?

[LAwLz]

So in 100 years, we are going to have another human rights issue akin to civil rights, slavery, minor rights? Those people are going to look back and say "wow, they couldnt have gotten it more wrong"? You dont think that we will build upon our victories and iron out the problems that remain? You think a new foundation will be put down? I know you dont think that. We have it right. It needs to get better. Again...moving to another state for an abortion is not the same as having to leave your country for an abortion. See my reply to SSL below.

Maybe

It's really hard to tell what will happen in the future. There is no guarantee that things will always become better and better either. There is a possibility that something really bad happens and things turn for the worse.

 

 

First, get it right. I never said the US is perfect. Go back and read where I wrote that. I have continually said that it is imperfect but at a level where no further major issues are left to conquer akin to the ones we have solved. Any that exist are progressing towards finality

Well, you kind of implied that it was perfect here:

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).

[mr moose]

First, re-read the thread. I have already been here and explained why you are incorrect.

 

Second, I dont think you are quite understanding what this article is saying. This article is NOT saying that if you store information on a network it is open season for the feds to raid at their will. What this article (and law) do say, is that EXACTLY LIKE if you physically have data in paper form, that can be subpoenaed. 

 

This article has absolutely zero to do with the 4th amendment. The fourth amendment protects american citizens from illegal searches and seizures, this is still the case. The law very plainly says that you must present the information if presented with a valid subpoena or warrant.

 

But where their argument falls down is that they are arguing that digital assets are different to other assets.  The U.S. government doesn't have the power to search a home in another country, nor should it have the power to search the content of email stored overseas.   Just because the thing they want to search is digital does not change the rational behind the law.  

[Mooshi]

Only a nub puts valuable documents in online storage anyway. Those with common sense keep sensitive data locally.

[Real_PhillBert]

Oh ok, I did not realize you were just repeating the same stuff.

In any case, an American search warrant being enforced for Dublin servers, there's no jurisdiction or reason to compel a private party to basically steal data from a customer who has it on another country. If he doesn't wants it to be transferred then a request to the government of the foreign country should be issued.

Also correct me if I'm wrong but a warrant emitted by a secret court that cannot be compelled to disclose their reasons it's still in violation of the constitution and still in contradiction of the amendment in question. But hey what do I know right?

 

Statement 1) Its ok, sometimes these threads are difficult to keep track of. I wont hold it against you.

 

Statement 2) I kind of disagree. Asking an american company to follow american laws is well within its jurisdiction. No one is stealing anything (in this case at least). You still need that warrant/subpoena.  If they don't want to provide the requested information, regardless of its physical location, they would face sanctions an punishments under american law. No change than if you refuse to follow a subpoena or warrant within the US. You can make the decision to ignore it, but there will be consequences that you mus be prepared for. You have the choice to not allow the cops into your place when they have a search warrant, however there are consequences, in this case probably a broken down door and being arrested for contempt of court/impeding an investigation. 

 

Statement 3) Secret court? You lost me. This was not the work of any secret court, at least not from the information I have seen. In a warrant or subpoena the reason behind its issue is explained. But as I see it, that is not a requisite to a legal search, only valid approval by an official. These officials are held in check by publicly elected officials. Now if you want to discuss an overreach and/or corruption in the system, that is a separate, although valid, issue.