I don't really care about their taxes. I was simply illustrating that they unlock phones (individually by request with a warrant), that they got burned the last time they left a backdoor in a product, and that they are completely mercenary. The mercenary part is in line with what you said, they have only a responsibility to the shareholders to return a profit.

If they were doing this to safeguard the 4th Amendment only, then that would be patriotic.

They aren't concerned about privacy so much as weakening their code, which will leave them vulnerable to customer anger and possibly lawsuits later on.

Trust me, after having worked for them for years, I can unequivocally declare that if they could figure out a way to give the government a permanent backdoor while still protecting themselves, they would in a heartbeat. Therefore, they aren't so much a patriot as they are a mercenary.

The main issue is that they can unlock individual units, which they have done before for the FBI, but that means that the FBI and other agencies have to get a new warrant each time. The Feebs don't want to do that, they would prefer a blanket unlock that would nicely bypass the 4th Amendment and allow them to access your digital information at any time. Unfortunately, a blanket unlock method would leak out into the wild at some point and leave everyone open completely. Apple has had that happen before, notably during the early phases of .Mac/MobileMe, and the legal department got slammed with claims/suits because the unlock workaround leaked.

I don't think it's legal to use force (which is what a traffic stop is) to have a nice interaction. Even if you're handing out money, it is not proper. But then I believe in the 4th amendment.

This is what happens when the 4th amendment is misunderstood. There is no such thing as a "right to privacy"...unless you have a right to control what other people do with their property, or you have entered into some explicit contract with defined terms. The 4th amendment is a "right" that government grants you in a shallow attempt to limit its own power. It is not a "right" that somehow gives you the control of other people and what they can or can't do with their own property in all places and all times.

Snowden should be in prison for life, if not shot. Sure, he did a good thing by revealing the spying on American citizens. That is true whistleblowing. Good on him.

But then he dwarfed that good act by giving away our (I am speaking as an American, here, obviously) secrets, in the form of the terabytes of data on those 4 laptops, to our biggest rivals, China and Russia. He has also revealed tons of national secrets and techniques to the whole world that have absolutely nothing to do with Americans' 4th Amendment rights. His acts have put American lives and American industry at risk and has definitely harmed American stature and American industry.

So, yeah, give him the Nobel prize and the Medal of Honor. He can admire them in his Supermax cell.

I'm no lawyer, but I think the citizens in this case didn't properly understand the law. Normally, they are right--the 4th amendment states that the police need a warrant to search a private residence. However, there are several exceptions to that rule including two that are applicable here--the plain view exception and the emergencies exception (see this link).

The plain view exception states that if the police have a clear view of what they believe to be illegal activity, they may enter a private premise without a warrant. And those airsoft guns, which from a distance do indeed look like real firearms, are in plain view from the street.

The emergency exception states that police may search a premises without a warrant if the evidence can be easily destroyed or moved before a warrant can be issued. In this case they had an anonymous tip that illegal activity was taking place at the location? If the citizens were actually selling guns, by the time the cops could secure a search warrant the sellers could have packed up all their stuff and left town.

I think in this case the fact that the guns were on sale in the driveway in plain view coupled with the anonymous tip gives police all the probable cause they need to search the premises without a warrant. I think if these people decided to be assholes and file a lawsuit claiming their civil rights had been violated or something, they'd be up shit creek without a paddle.

Your video, John Stossel Gets Schooled on the 4th Amendment, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

And how do you think the government would get the money to pay for this information? Don't give them the justification that its unjust because we're not paid for the information they acquire. Its unjust because its a violation the 4th amendment.

What would happen if Google, for example, just refused to comply?
I feel like people would stand up for Google a lot more readily than they would for the 4th amendment... certainly any of these corporations is a lot more popular right now than the government. What could they possibly threaten with that wouldn't trigger a massive pro-Google outcry and martyrdom?

'Irregardless' is not a word, HA, I'm the grammar police!

but seriously, these cops need to be schooled in the 4th amendment, it is their supervisors who are to blame in this

1. You are correct that there is not a rights violation, which is why none of these people are seeking damages. However, as soon as they allow themselves to be identified or searched, they are surrendering their rights under the 4th amendment. Furthermore, if the DHS officers state that they are being detained and are not free to go, and use force to make that so, then they are violating their rights for the same reason.

2. Many things have been "legal" in the past and viewed as "constitutional" that have long since been overturned. You don't have to dig too far into the historical grab bag to find some examples. Slavery, internment of Japanese citizens during WWII, poll taxes, spousal abuse, etc. Just because something is legal doesn't make it moral. Likewise, the findings of a particularly conservative and activist Supreme Court does not mean that an issue is actually in keeping with the constitution. Don't forget that our constitution as it was originally written included the proclamation that 'non-free' men only counted as 3/5ths of a person. I mean, you don't get more constitutional than that.

There also needs to be probable cause to make Exigent Circumstances legal. Unfortunately the wording of the law is so full of loopholes that basically this allows complete nullification of our 4th amendment rights. Someone needs to take this to the SC to have it's constitutionality checked.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110827/23285615713/appeals-court-arresting-guy-filming-cops-was-clear-violation-both-1st-4th-amendments.shtml
Appeals Court: Arresting Guy For Filming Cops Was A Clear Violation Of Both 1st & 4th Amendments

>> ^renatojj:

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).
If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Given that libertarians are all about private property rights, what could be more private property than your own body? I get that some people don't like abortion. Fine, don't have one. But to say that "Not all libertarians are pro-choice"; isn't "pro-choice" (i.e. the freedom to make the decision yourself, not to have government interfere) a core libertarian principle?

As to the right to life of the unborn.... there's really no good answer here. An abortion is never a cause for celebration, it's always done as the lesser of two evils. I would say that the right to life of the mother trumps that of the unborn in all cases (i.e. where the mothers life is in danger) and that it should take place as early as possible.

>> ^renatojj:
Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

You get no argument from me here, the NDAA is a terrible law. I would actually use it to argue against the right of states to enact laws such as this, as the freedoms it violates should be universal (or constitutional I guess). To turn your argument around. why should only the people in New York have to suffer under it?

>> ^renatojj:
Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

It's hard for me to defend this position as I'm an atheist too. All religious people, including Ron Paul, cherry-pick which parts of their holy book to adhere to in their day to day lives. I don't see Ron Paul arguing for the banning of pork or shellfish, yet they are clearly stated to be abominations in the bible. If he can work his way around that, why can't he accept evolution?


>> ^renatojj:
I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell



>> ^renatojj:
The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?
I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

Fair enough.

>> ^renatojj:
I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:
a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property
b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve
c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Easy C. I'm all for discrimination based on actions or abilities. I disagree with affirmative action (I feel it is patronising to minorities).

Now could this be used by a business to discriminate against an ethnic group on an individual basis? I guess so, but at least it makes it clear that the spirit of the law does not allow this.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred