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

[Builder]

-snip-

I'm not implying that an atheist would do any better. You're just putting words in my mouth now.

 

We are having a civil rights movement right now. It is called the gay rights movement. Do you realize there are laws in several states that allow the bullying of gay people in schools based on their religion? Essentially bullying is ok if you're expressing sentiments defined in your religion. We still have so far to go with gay rights and you're acting as if we're done.

 

And no, you're wrong. There are laws on the books in eight states that, in blatant unconstitutional legalese, state that a person who is atheist may not become governor.

 

"You cant shove ideas of equality down peoples' throats." Damn right I can. Bigots don't have a right to their bigotry.

 

In other countries, you don't need to pay for medical care. It's included in your taxes. I don't want someone to die of cancer because their family couldn't sustain the 50 years of crushing debt that would follow. I'd say you're a horrible person if you don't agree. 

 

You seem to ignore our foreign policy. Let's assume for a minute that the country is this blissful paradise that you portray that is perfectly equal even though there are voter fraud laws, restrictions on who can lead the government, abortion restrictions, etc. We still kill thousands of innocent civilians a year all around the world. We torture innocent people in a not so secret off shore prison where we deny people trials and hold them against their will.

 

Dick Cheney and George Bush are afraid to leave the country because they fear they will be arrested for war crimes. We went on a massive killing spree for eight years and broke a lot of international law including the Geneva conventions that a lot of other countries will not be quick to forget.

 

Your original statement was "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)." I have proven this several times over not to be the case, and you just keep moving the goalposts while you retroactively reiterate to say that you didn't actually say that the laws in this country were perfectly fair. At this point, you're lying and you know it too, given your responses.

 

I'll tell you what. I'm done with this. I don't want to argue with an insane nationalist who believes that the country is a magical land of freedom and equality. You're exactly the kind of person we don't need in government. 

[nicehat]

 

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

 

No I didnt imply it there. Not by a long shot. In fact I made an effort to say that it is indeed not perfect as in the case here:

 

 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. 

 

 

or here:

 

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

 

In response to the quote in question, I mentioned my stance on the evolution of our morals with those of yesteryear's here:

 

My thing is that morals today by a imagined measurement metric are far more evolved and progressive than they were 100 years ago....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)..... 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). 

 

I also said that any loose ends of our evolution are in the process of being fixed. However, the fundamental paradigm for those issues have been changed. 

 

So to put it bluntly, you took what I was saying out of context. I never said or implied it was a perfect setup, and I explicitly said that it was not. 

[nicehat]

We are having a civil rights movement right now. It is called the gay rights movement. Do you realize there are laws in several states that allow the bullying of gay people in schools based on their religion? Essentially bullying is ok if you're expressing sentiments defined in your religion. We still have so far to go with gay rights and you're acting as if we're done.

 

They are just now being allowed into the military. They are just now being afforded legal status wrt marriage. They are just now being afforded social net, spousal benefits, and medical beneficial statuses.  This all happened within the past 2 years. Your calling out the loose ends. Im not saying its done. Re-read the part where I say that its a process. 

And no I didnt know that. And without knowledge of what you are talking about with respect to bullying, Im not going to comment on it. 

 

And no, you're wrong. There are laws on the books in eight states that, in blatant unconstitutional legalese, state that a person who is atheist may not become governor.

 

Ok, I guess Im wrong. There are 7 states where you cant run. It really doesnt matter. Say that you are god fearing and run anyway. Just like many of our politicians do. What do you have to say about the countless anti-gay republican lawmakers and senators that have been caught being flamboyantly gay at some point in their career? These people usually are disgraced for life and are exiled into obscurity. Still take their stances on traditional marriage and Christianity at face value? 

 

But back to the point. You dont have one. Other than this issue (which is moot) you cant place this on the same level as the obstacles we have surpassed. Can you? 

 

"You cant shove ideas of equality down peoples' throats." Damn right I can. Bigots don't have a right to their bigotry.

 

Go ahead and drive down the bible belt and try dropping some knowledge on those folk then... by all means. 

 

In other countries, you don't need to pay for medical care. It's included in your taxes. I don't want someone to die of cancer because their family couldn't sustain the 50 years of crushing debt that would follow. I'd say you're a horrible person if you don't agree. 

 

Ok I agree. I guess that makes be an awesome person if I take the inverse of horrible. But I have no idea what you are on about. The HealthCare act was supposed to fundamentally change the way we take care of people. It did that. It also has your concern covered as for a family wont having to sustain 50 years of crushing debt for cancer treatment. Health Care has come along way in this country, you might want to read up on the changes that we now have.  

 

You seem to ignore our foreign policy. Let's assume for a minute that the country is this blissful paradise that you portray that is perfectly equal even though there are voter fraud laws, restrictions on who can lead the government, abortion restrictions, etc. We still kill thousands of innocent civilians a year all around the world. We torture innocent people in a not so secret off shore prison where we deny people trials and hold them against their will.

 

Why should I talk about foreign policy? By the way I dont know how old you are, but you realize that it takes time to close down an offshore prison and have them transferred to a prison that needs to be constructed in a state that is willing to accommodate them? You realize that an executive order was placed to close down the prison, and the only reason it was revoked was due to there not being a state willing to accommodate them>? You realize that while the senate denied the prisoners transfer to US soil, they relaxed restrictions to send them back to authorites of their home countries or those allied with the US? 

 

And do you realize that this is a slow process that is indeed being undertaken? I dont think you know what you are talking about. I really dont. If you did, you would have put a little more thought into your illogical stance of "shut it down yesterday!". 

 

Dick Cheney and George Bush are afraid to leave the country because they fear they will be arrested for war crimes. We went on a massive killing spree for eight years and broke a lot of international law including the Geneva conventions that a lot of other countries will not be quick to forget.

 

Not related to what Im talking about. But for what its worth I agree. Im talking about the US only, as Ive stated countless times prior. 

 

Your original statement was "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)." I have proven this several times over not to be the case, and you just keep moving the goalposts while you retroactively reiterate to say that you didn't actually say that the laws in this country were perfectly fair. At this point, you're lying and you know it too, given your responses.

 

You have proven nothing. Your points of Weed being a schedule I drug and not being able to be an atheist governor are laughable. Your knowledge of abortion and the laws surrounding it? Absolutely ridiculous. Yet you think you can talk about it. You have no idea what you are talking about. See my other posts and show me where I said its perfect, then call me a liar if you find those words in the context that you seem to have hallucinated. Until then you are full of something that rhymes with "quit"... which brings me to the last point you made: 

 

I'll tell you what. I'm done with this. I don't want to argue with an insane nationalist who believes that the country is a magical land of freedom and equality. You're exactly the kind of person we don't need in government. 

 

Feel free...

[Builder]

-snip-

This doesn't even deserve a reply. You're just a very, very sad troll.

[Imaginaerum]

Dick Cheney and George Bush are afraid to leave the country because they fear they will be arrested for war crimes. We went on a massive killing spree for eight years and broke a lot of international law including the Geneva conventions that a lot of other countries will not be quick to forget. 

Lol what. Don't sound ridiculous.

[Builder]

Lol what. Don't sound ridiculous.

They seem to have a decent point around Cheney, but their argument with Bush is that the Secret Service would defend him. That's not an argument. Also Common Sense Conspiracy is a known biased source.

 

The fact remains that they are war criminals, whether or not they'd actually be arrested. I don't think they would be, but trust me, if a European country wanted to arrest Bush the moment he set foot over their border, the Secret Service would not be able to defend him. Of course they wouldn't, because nobody wants a war with the US.

 

Edit: read the second comment and look it up.

[nicehat]

This doesn't even deserve a reply. You're just a very, very sad troll.

 

You just did..translation: you have nothing to say. If you cant back up your trash, stop spewing it..at least give the illusion that you know what you are talking about. Or dont, I couldn't care less. 

[mr moose]

I do agree that the US government does not have the right or jurisdiction to search a house located on foreign soil, furthermore I would 100% agree with you that information held by US companies overseas was not immediately accessible and (presumably) placed there from the United States. If the server where the information is held is not in any way connected to a terminal in the US, you are right, they should not have to give the information. However this is not the case, the information can be accessed from american soil and was placed there by american citizen on US soil. 

 

Digital information saved on a network cannot be held in the same regard as physical material because they are simply not the same. For example, lets pretend for a minute that the DropBox servers are in Dublin, and I am some type of organized crime boss and have put pictures of my crimes on dropbox. Do you think that because these servers are off US soil the courts should not be able to access them even with a legal warrant? This is an issue that there really isn't a right answer to, so its ok to say no. But I would say that the information in my dropbox does fall under the jurisdiction of a search warrant.

 

This is obviously not the same as the same crime boss keeping kilo's of cocaine in a warehouse in Dublin. That would obviously not fall under the jurisdiction of a search warrant because as hard as I may try, I cannot access them from US soil.

 

Its totally cool to disagree with what I am saying here. This is just how I am seeing this case.

 

It's got nothing to do with accessibility,  the data stored on a server is exactly the same as information in a letter or written in a a journal.  The only difference is that you  have to post one while the other can either be put on a disc and posted or sent via a file transfer.   Personal information is personal information and the argument is that the law either applies to all personal information or it doesn't apply at all. 

[Imaginaerum]

They seem to have a decent point around Cheney, but their argument with Bush is that the Secret Service would defend him. That's not an argument. Also Common Sense Conspiracy is a known biased source.

 

The fact remains that they are war criminals, whether or not they'd actually be arrested. I don't think they would be, but trust me, if a European country wanted to arrest Bush the moment he set foot over their border, the Secret Service would not be able to defend him. Of course they wouldn't, because nobody wants a war with the US.

 

Edit: read the second comment and look it up.

It really doesn't matter how you spin it, there is no way an ex-president of the USA would get arrested for 'war crimes' based on public opinion of how they handled the middle-east.

[Builder]

It really doesn't matter how you spin it, there is no way an ex-president of the USA would get arrested for 'war crimes' based on public opinion of how they handled the middle-east.

It's not public opinion, torture is against the Geneva conventions, full stop. On top of Abu Ghraib there is still Guantanamo. The government advocated torture, which is against the Geneva conventions.

 

As the comment read, they were only convicted of war crimes in March 2012. And they were convicted, I dare you, look it up.

[Real_PhillBert]

It's got nothing to do with accessibility,  the data stored on a server is exactly the same as information in a letter or written in a a journal.  The only difference is that you  have to post one while the other can either be put on a disc and posted or sent via a file transfer.   Personal information is personal information and the argument is that the law either applies to all personal information or it doesn't apply at all. 

 

Yes... and the government is being consistent and saying the law applies to all personal information, not just physical data. 

[mr moose]

Yes... and the government is being consistent and saying the law applies to all personal information, not just physical data. 

 

except that if it was a letter in a house in another country they could not subpena it but because it is on a hard drive in a server in another country they have determined they can.  that's not my definition of consistent.

[Real_PhillBert]

except that if it was a letter in a house in another country they could not subpena it but because it is on a hard drive in a server in another country they have determined they can.  that's not my definition of consistent.

 

I see what you are saying, and it is valid. However what they are saying is that if you can access it from within the US you must provide it, regardless of where it is actually located. 

[mr moose]

I see what you are saying, and it is valid. However what they are saying is that if you can access it from within the US you must provide it, regardless of where it is actually located. 

 

The ability to access something remotely should not supersede existing laws on privacy and of off shore property. Otherwise we can use a whole lot of remote access technology to avoid laws.

[Real_PhillBert]

The ability to access something remotely should not supersede existing laws on privacy and of off shore property. Otherwise we can use a whole lot of remote access technology to avoid laws.

 

Your two sentences seem to be contradictory. If your ability to access information remotely did not supersede existing laws, then you would be able to use remote access to avoid laws.

[mr moose]

Your two sentences seem to be contradictory. If your ability to access information remotely did not supersede existing laws, then you would be able to use remote access to avoid laws.

That's not contradictory. If remote access is the excuse used to ignore the law that restricts access to property oversees,  then why not use remote access to ignore a law that restricts access to local property? 

 

Ease of access does not determine if something is/isn't beyond the jurisdiction of a country,  physical legal borders do that.

[Real_PhillBert]

That's not contradictory. If remote access is the excuse used to ignore the law that restricts access to property oversees,  then why not use remote access to ignore a law that restricts access to local property? 

 

Ease of access does not determine if something is/isn't beyond the jurisdiction of a country,  physical legal borders do that.

 

This is exactly what they are saying you cannot do...

[SeriouslyMikey]

Is nothing protected over the pond in America? 

 

Freedom! 

[mr moose]

This is exactly what they are saying you cannot do...

 

what?  I think you'd better tread the article again.