TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

US Sought Permission to Change Historical Record of a Public Court Proceeding

437 点作者 philfreo将近 11 年前

12 条评论

revelation将近 11 年前
The transcript is a good read, too. The EFF explains how the NSA grabs data wholesale from fiber optic cables (step 1) and then filters it according to selectors (step 2). This is the governments rebuke:<p>&gt; IN FACT, THE SUPREME COURT DELINEATED PRECISELY HOW<p>&gt; THE PROGRAM OPERATES. AND IT IS A TARGETED PROGRAM. IT IS A<p>&gt; PROGRAM THAT IS TARGETED AT SPECIFIC SELECTORS, THAT IS PHONE<p>&gt; NUMBERS OR EMAIL ACCOUNTS.<p>This person doesn&#x27;t have an understanding of how <i>selectors</i> work. He doesn&#x27;t realize that you can&#x27;t decide if something is a phone number or an email account until you have already taken a look at it. This is the level on which they argue. They trick people into thinking that you can put a bunch of selectors in one bag and have only matching communications magically appear in a second one, circumventing the obvious constutional issue of collecting everything. But gravity is still in effect, so anyone with a basic understanding realizes that you can&#x27;t get to (2) without having taken step (1).<p>&gt; IT IS NOT BULK META DATA COLLECTION.<p>&gt; IT&#x27;S A TARGETED COMMUNICATION SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM<p>&gt; AGAINST NON U.S. PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.<p>You&#x27;re not sure if he is just ignorant or feigning ignorance. And the problem is that <i>it might just work</i>. It brings back memories to the Java APIs case where the career lawyer argued a trivial three line Java code Google copied verbatim constituted copyright infringement. He didn&#x27;t know, of course, what he was talking about. There was no mental framework for him to realize the sheer stupidity on display.
评论 #8140754 未加载
评论 #8140405 未加载
评论 #8140639 未加载
评论 #8140622 未加载
philfreo将近 11 年前
&gt; The transcript of a court proceeding is the historical record of that event, what will exist and inform the public long after the persons involved are gone. The government&#x27;s attempt to change this history was unprecedented. We could find no example of where a court had granted such a remedy or even where such a request had been made. This was another example of the government&#x27;s attempt to shroud in secrecy both its own actions, as well as the challenges to those actions.<p>Reminder to donate to the EFF: <a href="https://supporters.eff.org/donate" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;supporters.eff.org&#x2F;donate</a>
评论 #8139829 未加载
评论 #8139839 未加载
javajosh将近 11 年前
Awesome job, EFF. You are doing important work.<p>Curious: we have laws against &quot;attempted murder&quot;, are there any laws against &quot;attempted illegal redaction of court proceedings&quot; that can be applied here? My concern is that there is no deterrent to this being attempted again, perhaps in a context that is less visible, and less ably defended, than in this case.
评论 #8139900 未加载
评论 #8140730 未加载
RexRollman将近 11 年前
What kills me is that this is all happening under the leadership of a president who once taught constitutional law. If someone with his background won&#x27;t stop this kind of thing from happening, who will?
评论 #8140849 未加载
评论 #8140247 未加载
评论 #8140252 未加载
评论 #8140727 未加载
评论 #8140191 未加载
mjn将近 11 年前
Tangential question: reading the transcript, I&#x27;m surprised that two of the three parties&#x27; lawyers are attending the court session via speakerphone. Is that common?
评论 #8140056 未加载
natch将近 11 年前
Thanks EFF for fighting this.<p>&gt;The government&#x27;s attempt to change this history was unprecedented.<p>How does the EFF know this was unprecedented? If there had been a precedent, wouldn&#x27;t it be hidden?<p>I would expect the EFF to avoid statements that seem naive, even while I appreciate what they do.
评论 #8141804 未加载
jonah将近 11 年前
We need a service like this[1] to track the changes from all courts, not just the SCOTUS[2].<p>[1] <a href="http://www.dailydot.com/news/twitter-tracks-supreme-court-changes/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dailydot.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;twitter-tracks-supreme-court-ch...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/us/final-word-on-us-law-isnt-supreme-court-keeps-editing.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;05&#x2F;25&#x2F;us&#x2F;final-word-on-us-law-is...</a>
评论 #8142744 未加载
esbranson将近 11 年前
&gt; <i>We could find no example of where a court had</i><p>Given the exorbitant fees the PACER system charges, I doubt anyone, even the EFF, could afford to find such a case out of all the federal court cases.
评论 #8140776 未加载
factchecka将近 11 年前
Loving the url for Shubert v. Obama: <a href="https://www.eff.org/cases/shubert-v-bush" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.eff.org&#x2F;cases&#x2F;shubert-v-bush</a>
评论 #8140837 未加载
评论 #8140854 未加载
gohrt将近 11 年前
&quot;US Sought Permission&quot; ? That&#x27;s an odd phrasing. Who did the US ask?
评论 #8140234 未加载
评论 #8141069 未加载
shmerl将近 11 年前
Police state mentality in action.
dreamweapon将近 11 年前
<i>Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.</i><p>-- George Orwell, <i>1984</i>, Part 1, Chapter 7
评论 #8140002 未加载
评论 #8139657 未加载