Warrant Canaries

[Stephen D. Williams]

On 4/1/15 10:34 AM, Lodewijk andré de la porte wrote:
> 2015-04-02 0:32 GMT+09:00 Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net <mailto:sdw at lig.net>>:
>
>     Since the First Amendment is strained here, reasonable people could conclude that the conflicting law is unconstitutional. 
>     That could lead to a sense of responsibility to do the right thing.
>
>
> What's this First Amendment thing that I have absolutely no protection from? Oh, right, something American! Geez, don't you 
> Americans realize the constitution is something of a moral code that you should uphold in law and practice, with force (hint: 
> guns, militia's) if need be?
>
> Anyway, again, unless you're one of the fortuitous/doomed 322 million people that have a US citizenship this grants NO PROTECTION 
> AT ALL EVER. Not even when in the US or whilst using a US service. FISA and "National Security Letters" prove the threadbare legal 
> holdfasts snapped ages ago anyway. I would swear there was something compelling the people to revolt when the government acts 
> against the people/the public's interests, but I cannot find it now. Filter bubble or a lively imagination, who knows what to blame.

If you are inside the US, you do have full protection of US laws, including the First Amendment, although there are some specific 
exceptions.  Outside the US, it varies.  Ideally, a local law provides similar protection.  US companies will operate as if you do 
have the same rights, so in some sense and range of situations, the rights extend to everyone globally.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/09/do_noncitizens_have_constitutional_rights.html
>
> the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even /illegal/ immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the 
> criminal code has the right to due process <http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761570222>, a speedy and public 
> trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentv> 
> and Sixth Amendments <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentvi>. This 
> <http://www.nlg.org/wtc/know%20your%20rights.htm> fact sheet from the National Lawyers Guild outlines a host of rights afforded to 
> immigrants and citizens alike. (There are a few rights reserved for citizens. Among them are the right to vote, the right to hold 
> most federal jobs, and the right to run for political office.)
>
> But /immigration proceedings/ are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. (As a result, the consequence of violating your 
> immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without 
> interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme 
> Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would 
> be unacceptable if applied to citizens.
>


Somebody else wrote:
>
>     works... IF EVERYONE cooperates to flaunt, flaut, and disregard it.
>     Could you IMAGINE the gubmint trying to take every internet provider and
>     major website operating in the US to court?
>     Shut down Twitter and Yahoo!'s US ops?
>     Really!
>
>
> Have you heard of "punitive punishment"? Do you know the percentage of people breaking the Computer Fraud Act? What about 
> Copyright? How many people have been selectively convicted of drug use? (bonus points for racial profiling!)
>
> Simply put: oh no, you are so, so very wrong.
>
>     But then, one simply doesn't do business in Australia that needs warrant
>     canaries. What am I missing?
>
>
> Uhh.. What?...

sdw
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 7936 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20150401/d0e19cdc/attachment-0002.txt>