Hacker News Reader

Comment by delinka | Hacker News Reader

It's not illegal when you're above the law. Law enforcement in the US (well, the entire executive branch of the federal government) seems to think the law doesn't apply to them. "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal..." In the present climate, it's "When the President does it, or authorizes someone to do it..."

View on HN

This atmosphere of apathy is a major cause of said present climate. LE isn't meeting much material resistance, even now. There's lots of media coverage, but nobody does anything. Insisting that nothing can be done is worse than saying nothing, because it inspires the attitude of inaction that has brought us to this state.

I think mtgx has got the right idea. Challenging the government in the courts, even if ultimately unsuccessful, sends a much more powerful message than the censures that have, time and time again, caused no change. Surely there are some lawyers browsing this site who can evaluate mtgx's idea.

To be honest, I've found that the ones most apathetic are the ones complaining about apathy. If you don't like it, DO SOMETHING.

Campaign for increased privacy. Give solid, concrete examples of how the USG needs definite barriers after tearing the ones constructed during the inception of the Constitution. Spread the word, organize rallies, and do whatever you can.

Don't stick your nose in the sand and complain about apathy.

It depends on whether a search warrant was obtained. Given the article notes how similar it is to what data you can get from a search warrant, it may be the case that a court gave them a thumbs up.

This is not a new problem. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I share your feelings in re to LE; however, wouldn't any prosecution that came out of this activity be a fruit of the poisonous tree??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

Can some lawyer/knowledgeable individual elaborate?

Frightened juries are probably prone to ignoring such details.

It is the responsibility of the judge to throw out this evidence, not the jury.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com