<story><title>N.S.A. Phone Surveillance Is Lawful, Federal Judge Rules</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/nsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>noarchy</author><text>Those of you who want a political answer to this surveillance problem should pay attention when these things happen. This is your system, in a nutshell. The legislators, judges, law enforcement officials, etc, are all in on this. Don&amp;#x27;t wait for the president or prime minister to change things. That won&amp;#x27;t happen. You&amp;#x27;ll have to take your security into your own hands to the greatest extent possible. This will including learning to adapt once your government inevitably outlaws your favourite means of protecting your security and privacy.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>chris_mahan</author><text>I&amp;#x27;ve reached the conclusion that in order to receive constitutional protection of &amp;quot;my papers&amp;quot;, they need to be &amp;quot;on paper&amp;quot;. So, I essentially don&amp;#x27;t put anything on the internet, or even on my computer, unless I&amp;#x27;m comfortable with it being on the internet, permanently (meaning until my great-grandchildren retire, in 120 years).&lt;p&gt;for reference, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I would like to think that &amp;quot;papers&amp;quot; in the text would also refer to electronic documents, but alas that seems to not be the case.&lt;p&gt;This is one of those cases where the saying &amp;quot;In Theory, Practice and Theory are the same, but in practice they&amp;#x27;re not.&amp;quot; seems to fit.</text></comment>
<story><title>N.S.A. Phone Surveillance Is Lawful, Federal Judge Rules</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/nsa-phone-surveillance-is-lawful-federal-judge-rules.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>noarchy</author><text>Those of you who want a political answer to this surveillance problem should pay attention when these things happen. This is your system, in a nutshell. The legislators, judges, law enforcement officials, etc, are all in on this. Don&amp;#x27;t wait for the president or prime minister to change things. That won&amp;#x27;t happen. You&amp;#x27;ll have to take your security into your own hands to the greatest extent possible. This will including learning to adapt once your government inevitably outlaws your favourite means of protecting your security and privacy.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>sanderjd</author><text>This actually looks more like the system &lt;i&gt;working&lt;/i&gt; to me. There are now two important judges who disagree in their interpretation of the issue. The system failed when this was kept secret such that it could not be ruled on by the legal system (and I don&amp;#x27;t believe a &amp;quot;secret court&amp;quot; is a part of a &amp;quot;legal system&amp;quot;), but now that it is being ruled on, it&amp;#x27;s expected and proper that judges may disagree.</text></comment>