Appeals Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Idaho Woman's Case Against NSA Spying | Hacker News Reader

Appeals Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Idaho Woman's Case Against NSA Spying

eff.org

76 pointsclebio23 comments

Reminder: If you haven't already, please sign up for at least a $10/mo recurring donation to the EFF and ACLU.

https://supporters.eff.org/donate

https://www.aclu.org/donate/join-renew-give

These court battles are necessary to protect our civil liberties, and they cost money.

In addition to donating $10, I could help maintain their PCI Compliance for free with my tool, ComplianceChimp.com. Its a production ready application, and since I know PCI-QSA's charge $50,000 per year at minimum, my tool would help free up some of their PCI resources. Even if they're only doing the SAQ A-EP or SAQ D, my tool would help free up resources currently using custom spreadsheets and word documents.

5 min video demonstration of me using the tool: http://youtu.be/ym3TV1FYIHI

I very much like the EFF and the ACLU and very much support what they're doing.

You can gmail me at anytime: akshat.ip

You can also use Amazon with the 'smile' subdomain (smile.amazon.com) to support a charities and organizations with every purchase, and the EFF is one of the possible choices.

Just signed up! I'd been meaning to for while, and this reminded me -- thanks.

If you have a workplace gift matching program, don't forget to take advantage of it!

The cops, courts, judges, congress and executive office all work against the American people. Your disposable income will do nothing in the long-run to stop those that stand to benefit, profit and empower themselves through subverting the average citizen's rights. Enact real change through historically proven measures.

I am reasonably familiar with the subject of history, but I am still curious to what you mean by "historically proven measures"?

The only drastic shifts in power happen in times of need. What the people do once they regain that power will only speak to the direction of humanity, but at least it speaks to our evolution or lack thereof as a whole, instead of some select group that seeks to subvert and oppress.

Like matteotom (and I'm sure a lot of other readers here), I would very much like to hear what you are referring to when you say "historically proven measures".

You made the assertion that giving disposable income to the EFF "will do nothing in the long-run..." and say we should "enact real change through historically proven measures". Is it unreasonable for us to ask you what you mean by "historically proven measures"?

If you are not willing to answer the question and have further discussion about it, why did you make the comment in the first place? It's a completely reasonable question.

> our evolution or lack thereof as a whole

I agree with your broader thrust (Spaceship Earth, etc.), but evolution does not work that way.

Specifically, what points in history are you referring to with "historically proven measures"?

Most of the HN crowds are far from accepting this idea of a revolution, this is specifically the problem I'm not willing to address here. You would all rather bury your heads in the idea that your disposable income somehow super-cedes your taxes, or that your occasional attention or interest in laws and justice super-cedes the interests of judges and law-enforcement to override your rights. I have to look no further than the SOPA, CIPA, whatever renaming to know otherwise.

The system has to burn and be rebuilt. The actions of a few do not represent the many. Humanity, for worse or better must come to represent itself again. History has plenty of information about how and why revolutions are formed, and in my observations it either takes an act of attentive artists pulling the people together, or poverty.

Myself, I opt for poverty. I'm no artist, so I seek to drain everything I can from the economy and welfare systems. I don't care which of you understand this logic, as I'm aware the majority are merely interested in social-gratification.

Fire away, as I'm aware none of you are actually interested in my points here and merely seek to have better positions of attack.

While I would tend to disagree, thank you for saying that. I will leave it there since you don't want to argue.

Sorry for responding to your question then. I'm not interested in your invitation to an argument about specifics. History has plenty of instances of the people vs systems of governance, if you can't summon those by your own fruition, then my comment isn't intended for you.

I don't want an argument. You just made a vague but potentially interesting assertion, and I am curious about what you are referring to. But your lack of willingness to give any real examples leads me to believe you have none.

Edit in response to edit:

Examples: American and French revolutions. Various Communist revolutions. Various violent and non-violent conflicts leading to constitutional monarchy and then democracy in England (with similar situations in the rest of Europe). Various revolutions against colonialism.

However, by your own definition of the problem, none of these have been very successful over the long term.

If you don't want to go running because you'll be sore in the morning, then just resolve to be fat. If that's what humanity wants, then by all means. However, I would like to continue redefining humanity and evolving. The people cannot do that in a system that controls the flow of easily-digest-able information, laws and authority.

You didn't concretely answer his question.

In an abstract way I did. I'm not interested in being dragged into easy points of contention with someone that would rather attempt to pay their way out of the problems of our times.

What are you thinking of? Beheadings?

I'll assume you aren't familiar with the subject of history, otherwise I would have to assume you're just trying to discredit me without having an actual conversation.

Excellent use of your down-voting privileges I might add.

Actually no. It is apparent that it is you who are unwilling to "have an actual conversation". Two separate people have asked you completely legitimate questions. You didn't evidently like the questions, so you essentially accuse them of being trolls.

That being said, I would love to be proven wrong in your case. If you really do want to "have an actual conversation", by all means please answer those two questions honestly, completely and directly.

BTW, I don't think it is just me, but I am open to the possiblility -- your original replies to the questions come off as very smug and elitist. I'm not saying that to be nasty -- it's just the way I perceived it. If you want to have a real conversation, I would suggest you word things differently. If others did not perceive your replies in the way that I did, I'd welcome their perspective on it also.

I cannot downvote direct replies to my comments, only upvote.

Sadly, this is not likely to have a good outcome--they drew anti-civil-liberties judges.

For example Michael Daly Hawkins had a dissented to argue that it's ok for a school to strip-search a crying thirteen year-old to search for ibuprofen. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/12/nation/na-strip12

That's what i'm talking about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com