Hmm, methinks this could a sham. The NSA doesn't really need state assistance with mass data collection.
Is this one of those symbolic things where they enjoy the benefit of being against it without actually doing anything about it? Perhaps this would make a difference at the enforcement level? Trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lemme know what shakes out of this, will ya? I'm curious to see if it makes a difference and don't get me wrong, I hope it makes a difference. They all ought to be in jail behind that. imo
My thoughts on it, as stated above, are that it may just be a baby step...but it is a step. Bottom line is that - barring a people's revolution, which I do not see occurring - only the states have the means to nullify overreach by the feds.
Indeed it is. Look at the marijuana laws. Or the Real ID act...that was supposed to take effect in 2008, but the states have held that off until 2020. If they really dug in their heels, they could nullify a lot more.
Sounds interesting. I don't like the invasive nature of the NSA and I don't trust what are supposed to be the checks and balance of it. Just one question though. Would they have been able to track and find the Texas bomber without it? I honestly don't know.
Yes. They caught him by going from the videos at FedEx (one of which showed his vehicle), which led them to video at Home Depot, and those gave them probable cause to track his cell phone, which is how they located him.
Yes. Ultimately, it was video footage from the private property of a business that led them to the bomber. This was also the result of very poor judgement on his part... as is typically the case.
Intriguing given the vast network of cameras throughout the Austin / R.R. areas.
Reminds me of the authorities going door to door invading residents home in Boston following the Boston Marathon bombing, only for a private resident to find the fella hiding in his boat.
Furthermore, they could very easily have procured a proper warrant, with the video footage and dept. of motor vehicle information they gleaned from it, to order his cell phone carrier's assistance in locating him via his phone.
It won't stop the NSA...but at least my state will not be a party to their spying. In the grand scheme of spying on American citizens, it's a baby step...but a step nonetheless.
I would definitely pick and choose what states can do. I don't think the issue is to overthrow the Federal Government, but there have been some agencies that have unilaterally chopped up and trampled American Citizen's privacy rights.
Essentially, you are correct. But that doesn't mean that we should ever quit fighting government intrusions.
I just ran across an interesting little coinkidink. DARPA, an agency of the DoD, had started a project called "LifeLog" that would allow people to make a digital diary of virtually every aspect of their lives. It was quietly shut down within a couple of weeks of and reported in Wired on the very day of FB's debut.
I don't FB, but the issues are inherent in using the internet at all, basically. From Google collecting your search history to your every step via your Android phone, if you have one. Apps you use/download all require permissions, too. It's generally in the fine print that no one reads. Essentially, by buying some or using others, you automatically give your authorization. Here's a revealing test of Smartphone data collection...
Imo, no. Oh, they say you can turn it off. And I have. I have also found my Google settings "mysteriously" resetting when I have made no changes. The same when updating apps. Say I update an app and it says "no new permissions required", it may have initially required location, but I manually override them all. So if I update one that originally had it, it may reset it and I again have to manually override it.
There are also devices that LE uses that can intercept and sweep up a large amount of cellphone data in an area. These don't even require GPS to be on, as they access your phone's automatic communication with cell towers. Laws currently vary by state whether and when a warrant is needed for these. And let's be honest, the feds don't care about laws until they are caught, often not even then, or they'll say they quit doing whatever they've been caught doing and quietly reinstitute it as SOP after everyone's been distracted by something else.
I'm posting two videos, the first is only 4:30 and is Snowdon speaking of tbe UK's GCHQ abilities to access your phone, even to turn it on if you have it shut off. You know what the UK can do, the US can, too. The second is a bit longer at 26:56, but goes into more depth and is a worthy watch.
I was unaware that the feds had tried to get California to "round up Mexicans". My understanding of California's sanctuary law, which is admittedly very sketchy, has to do with state and local LE not being allowed to detain illegals on a hold request beyond their release dates, while allowing them to notify the feds when someone wanted is in custody on a state or local matter. Whether they are required to notify the feds about those whose crimes are on the excluded list or not wasn't clear from the articles I read.
Immigration law is constitutionally within the feds purview. Now, barring federal law, a state doesn't have an obligation to the federal government to honor hold requests. In cases involving those who have been convicted of dangerous crimes, state and local agencies within California no longer have the option of cooperating with such requests, if I am understanding the law correctly, which seems to me to be undermining the safety and well-being of its citizenry.
So, to answer your question more directly, I don't "pick and choose", per se, but base my opinion upon my understanding of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds the right to do a great many things they do. Most, in fact. It does put immigration under federal purview, however, but I am unfamiliar with the bulk of either federal or state laws regarding immigration.
I think you may be taking the government's intentions for granted. Have you been paying attention to their behavior? Many will cheat, lie, slander, and do almost anything for power. I simply do not trust them with my personal data.
I don't know Boz - I understand and support the concept - I just don't see it making a real difference.
Rep. Howrylak said. “My bill will certify that the State of Michigan will not assist the federal government in any data collection unless it is 100 percent consistent with the U.S. Constitution.” But, the Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy - so what does his bill actually do for us?
Now, the Supreme Court Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion from the First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. So, now we have a law that says we have to really, REALLY follow the law?
To me it's reminiscent of what the UN was farting around with back when they were warning Iraq to be compliant with demands for cooperation with UN inspectors looking for WMD. They sent dozens of these warnings with escalating tone and no enforcement.
It could actually make a big difference, depending on certain things. How much data they collects through fusion centers, whether the state actually abides by it, other states passing and abiding by similar laws (others are being considered), and whether or not they try to build a facility in our state.
The Constitution does explicitly include the right to privacy, despite not actually using the word itself, in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments. JMHO
Hmm, methinks this could a sham. The NSA doesn't really need state assistance with mass data collection.
Is this one of those symbolic things where they enjoy the benefit of being against it without actually doing anything about it? Perhaps this would make a difference at the enforcement level? Trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Lemme know what shakes out of this, will ya? I'm curious to see if it makes a difference and don't get me wrong, I hope it makes a difference. They all ought to be in jail behind that. imo
My thoughts on it, as stated above, are that it may just be a baby step...but it is a step. Bottom line is that - barring a people's revolution, which I do not see occurring - only the states have the means to nullify overreach by the feds.
Oh, at the very least I hope it gives some faceless, unelected bureaucrat a migraine!
It is the duty of the states to fight back, after all.
Indeed it is. Look at the marijuana laws. Or the Real ID act...that was supposed to take effect in 2008, but the states have held that off until 2020. If they really dug in their heels, they could nullify a lot more.
Now that's my kind of law, referendum style!
Sounds interesting. I don't like the invasive nature of the NSA and I don't trust what are supposed to be the checks and balance of it. Just one question though. Would they have been able to track and find the Texas bomber without it? I honestly don't know.
Yes. They caught him by going from the videos at FedEx (one of which showed his vehicle), which led them to video at Home Depot, and those gave them probable cause to track his cell phone, which is how they located him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03...s-suspect.html
Yes. Ultimately, it was video footage from the private property of a business that led them to the bomber. This was also the result of very poor judgement on his part... as is typically the case.
Intriguing given the vast network of cameras throughout the Austin / R.R. areas.
Reminds me of the authorities going door to door invading residents home in Boston following the Boston Marathon bombing, only for a private resident to find the fella hiding in his boat.
Furthermore, they could very easily have procured a proper warrant, with the video footage and dept. of motor vehicle information they gleaned from it, to order his cell phone carrier's assistance in locating him via his phone.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"...who has the ultimate power to cut the puppet strings?"
Ultimately...only the people can do so. JMHO
I hear ya, FR.
It won't stop the NSA...but at least my state will not be a party to their spying. In the grand scheme of spying on American citizens, it's a baby step...but a step nonetheless.
I would definitely pick and choose what states can do. I don't think the issue is to overthrow the Federal Government, but there have been some agencies that have unilaterally chopped up and trampled American Citizen's privacy rights.
Essentially, you are correct. But that doesn't mean that we should ever quit fighting government intrusions.
I just ran across an interesting little coinkidink. DARPA, an agency of the DoD, had started a project called "LifeLog" that would allow people to make a digital diary of virtually every aspect of their lives. It was quietly shut down within a couple of weeks of and reported in Wired on the very day of FB's debut.
I don't FB, but the issues are inherent in using the internet at all, basically. From Google collecting your search history to your every step via your Android phone, if you have one. Apps you use/download all require permissions, too. It's generally in the fine print that no one reads. Essentially, by buying some or using others, you automatically give your authorization. Here's a revealing test of Smartphone data collection...
Interesting, I knew my phone tracked everywhere I went. Does turning off GPS prevent my phone tracking me, do you know?
Imo, no. Oh, they say you can turn it off. And I have. I have also found my Google settings "mysteriously" resetting when I have made no changes. The same when updating apps. Say I update an app and it says "no new permissions required", it may have initially required location, but I manually override them all. So if I update one that originally had it, it may reset it and I again have to manually override it.
There are also devices that LE uses that can intercept and sweep up a large amount of cellphone data in an area. These don't even require GPS to be on, as they access your phone's automatic communication with cell towers. Laws currently vary by state whether and when a warrant is needed for these. And let's be honest, the feds don't care about laws until they are caught, often not even then, or they'll say they quit doing whatever they've been caught doing and quietly reinstitute it as SOP after everyone's been distracted by something else.
I'm posting two videos, the first is only 4:30 and is Snowdon speaking of tbe UK's GCHQ abilities to access your phone, even to turn it on if you have it shut off. You know what the UK can do, the US can, too. The second is a bit longer at 26:56, but goes into more depth and is a worthy watch.
Thanks for the videos, I'm on my way to work now, but will watch them this evening.
I was unaware that the feds had tried to get California to "round up Mexicans". My understanding of California's sanctuary law, which is admittedly very sketchy, has to do with state and local LE not being allowed to detain illegals on a hold request beyond their release dates, while allowing them to notify the feds when someone wanted is in custody on a state or local matter. Whether they are required to notify the feds about those whose crimes are on the excluded list or not wasn't clear from the articles I read.
Immigration law is constitutionally within the feds purview. Now, barring federal law, a state doesn't have an obligation to the federal government to honor hold requests. In cases involving those who have been convicted of dangerous crimes, state and local agencies within California no longer have the option of cooperating with such requests, if I am understanding the law correctly, which seems to me to be undermining the safety and well-being of its citizenry.
So, to answer your question more directly, I don't "pick and choose", per se, but base my opinion upon my understanding of the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds the right to do a great many things they do. Most, in fact. It does put immigration under federal purview, however, but I am unfamiliar with the bulk of either federal or state laws regarding immigration.
What harm except to criminals? They can look at everything I do as nothing funny from me or anyone I know..
So...you have no curtains, shades, bathroom or bedroom doors, no front or back doors?
I think you may be taking the government's intentions for granted. Have you been paying attention to their behavior? Many will cheat, lie, slander, and do almost anything for power. I simply do not trust them with my personal data.
Philly I just wouldn't care what they look at. I have no secrets, no power, no reason to worry.
I don't know Boz - I understand and support the concept - I just don't see it making a real difference.
Rep. Howrylak said. “My bill will certify that the State of Michigan will not assist the federal government in any data collection unless it is 100 percent consistent with the U.S. Constitution.” But, the Constitution does not explicitly include the right to privacy - so what does his bill actually do for us?
Now, the Supreme Court Supreme Court has found that the Constitution implicitly grants a right to privacy against governmental intrusion from the First Amendment, Third Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment. So, now we have a law that says we have to really, REALLY follow the law?
To me it's reminiscent of what the UN was farting around with back when they were warning Iraq to be compliant with demands for cooperation with UN inspectors looking for WMD. They sent dozens of these warnings with escalating tone and no enforcement.
It could actually make a big difference, depending on certain things. How much data they collects through fusion centers, whether the state actually abides by it, other states passing and abiding by similar laws (others are being considered), and whether or not they try to build a facility in our state.
The Constitution does explicitly include the right to privacy, despite not actually using the word itself, in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th Amendments. JMHO
not enough info to answer
I provided a link, which also includes links.