General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"In a democracy, the law should never be secret."
This quote: "In a democracy, the law should never be secret."
is from this article: http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security/edward-snowden-whistleblower
How come this is not said more?
I had several conversations with some co workers that just floored me recently. One said: "Why haven't they killed that guy yet?" I was flabbergasted. This person was angry. He wanted Snowden dead... And another said... "The 4th Amendment was written in a different time. Things have changed. With all this digital stuff we need to change it."
I won't even get into the one who said: "The 4th? Which one is that?"
Of these three people one is furious and wants to either drone Snowden or send Seal Team 6 out for him. Another is thinking we need to change our 4th Amendment to accommodate the times. And the third is pretty much oblivious and unconcerned.
I myself never suspected there was anything unknown about my activities online. Maybe average joes/janes would be stymied by a username other than my actual name. But everything I do on the internet I have always suspected could be referenced in some database. The whole nature of it is about identification. I have to identify myself to the cable company to get an IP Address that identifies my traffic on the Internet. In order for information to travel from one point to another each point must be uniquely identified. Why? Because how else will the information get from one point to another without getting mixed up with all the other information that it travels with. I was just kind of hoping that no one was actually storing that information from all its disparate locations and indexing it in a searchable database.
I'm not doing anything wrong. But it's creepy. And, some of the things I look for could be suspect. I saw a Breaking Bad episode where the guy made exploding rock candy. I looked it up. Briefly. I did not want to leave tracks. I stymied my curiosity out of fear.
In grade school my teachers taught me how people died to give us a Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Freedom. Then in High School they made me read The Scarlet Letter, The Crucible, and 1984. WTF!? Sadists. I was hoping for maybe a more Brave New World'ish kind of dystopia. I mean, at least there would be Soma and sex. Instead what we are seeing is the increasingly real possibility that we are heading towards 1984.
That sucks. I don't want a rat in a cage on my head.
I think 'probable cause' should be sacrosanct. I don't think the government should be able to just look at anyone's activity in a blanket sweep and then decide if there is probable cause to look further. And I certainly do not want some private contractor to be handling such things. I just wish more people were informed.
And, I too think that "In a democracy, the law should never be secret."
Should there be "Secret Laws" in a Democracy?
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)of course not
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)The terror fear terror was making me wonder...
(why is there no crossing fingers behind the back smiley?)
unblock
(51,975 posts)we live in an amazing age with technology that can stimulate your curiosity and provide you with easy access to a way to expand you knowledge and understanding of the universe.
and you can do this all from the comfort of your own bedroom, naked if you care to, no one watching -- yet you still have to search as if someone's watching over your shoulder, looking to jump on you if any of your internet searches are deemed... "interesting".
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)Not to put into any kind of implementation, but some things are mind boggling. There are now a few things that I would never look for on the internet.
Isn't that just bizarre?
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)Just name one type of item you can't search for any more because of your paranoia.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)You're being paranoid. Sorry.
tridim
(45,358 posts)That's called paranoia.
If someone is really that paranoid in their daily life, they likely have other serious issues that should be addressed first.
If someone is a criminal searching for information about criminal activity, they're just a moron.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)I'm trying to figure out if you are being funny. It seems like you are trying to be funny like when guys get together and they tease each other. But besides all that. I just have one question:
tridim
(45,358 posts)That has precisely nothing to do with you being paranoid about your Google searches that nobody cares about.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)At least you agree that "In a Democracy, the law should not be secret." The actual title of my OP and the question asked by myself.
But labeling things paranoia really is a very good deflection into the woo.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)If they really are watching you it's no longer paranoia.
Safetykitten
(5,162 posts)whttevrr
(2,345 posts)I do need a new smartphone. And, I'm eligible for an upgrade!
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)whttevrr
(2,345 posts)Is that you?
tridim
(45,358 posts)Paranoia, self destroyer.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)whttevrr
(2,345 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)Hydra
(14,459 posts)Short and to the point.
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."
Emma Goldman
WillyT
(72,631 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)and if you do know a secret law, that's evidence of espionage
'we're just trying to keep you safe'
i have a feeling, the future will be very, very safe
i do think that sometime, somewhere some prosecutor will make the arguement 'it is immpossible for *any* person to be innocent of this charge'
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Nor on yours or anybody's, for that matter.
Proud to write that several DUers have tried bringing up this subject over the past decade, with limited results.
Nowadays, though, it's become obvious why.
Know your BFEE: The Secret Government
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)From wikipedia:
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I hope you are joking.
If not, what backwards part of the Country are you in? If anything, it should be required reading. Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and Animal Farm were all required when I was in high school.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)But it seems as if 1984, The Scarlet Letter, and The Crucible are no longer required reading.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)If the laws are secret, then Democracy is impossible.
The people can't be in charge (Democracy) when someone else subjects them to laws without their knowledge or consent.
Anyone who attempts to make a secret law is a traitor to America and they belong in a cell awaiting their final shot.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)"It is one of the genuine marks of servitude to have the law either concealed or precarious." -- Sir Edward Coke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Coke
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)I like this guy. He had a lot of courage to declare the king to be subject to the law in the 1500's. I am surprised he was not killed.
wiki
Herman Melville's use of the quote in this context seems eerily apropos today.
White-Jacket: Or The World In A Man-Of-War By Herman Melville
In view of these things, and especially in view of the fact that, in several cases, the degree of punishment inflicted upon a man-of-war's-man is absolutely left to the discretion of the court, what shame should American legislators take to themselves, that with perfect truth we may apply to the entire body of the American man-of-war's-men that infallible principle of Sir Edward Coke: "It is one of the genuine marks of servitude to have law either concealed or precarious." But still better may we subscribe to the saying of Sir Mathew Hale in his History of the Common Law, that "the Martial Law, being based upon no settled principles, is, in truth and reality, no law but something indulged rather than allowed as a law."
#secretlawsucks
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)snip* But by far the most important interpretation of what the law means is the official interpretation used by the U.S. government and this interpretation is - stunningly -classified.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ron-wyden/how-can-congress-debate-a_b_866920.html