Hacker News Reader

Comment by titzer | Hacker News Reader

> But gagging a company from disclosing untargeted or semi-targeted surveillance, especially if it involves American citizens, seems like it should be unconstitutional on free speech grounds.

I see you have not read the Patriot Act, an Orwellian double-speak of a title if there ever was one.

View on HN

The first "paper" I ever wrote was an anti-USA PATRIOT Act paper for a scholarship competition in 2003 when I was 17 where I was awarded $1,000. Literally the only thing I remember is what the acronym USA PATRIOT stands for.

Uniting and Strengthening American by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.

It really is one of the best double-speak bill titles ever.

cool!

Is it really that hard for the government to get a warrant for a suspected terrorist?

Is there any data on how often they're surveilling people without warrants vs with warrants?

This seems like important info to know.

You're missing the point, in this case they don't even need the warrant at all. And yes, it is because you would have to ask a judge for each and every person surveiled and then provide a reason. They wouldn't have any reason for the drag net and would be denied.

Having data on illegal searches would require an insider leaking that information. Nobody has any semblance of a clue how much illegal data sniffing is happening, and it’s even more questionable since the USA and five eyes continues to degrade basic privacy.

But won’t someone think of the children!?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com